The National Post has been conducting it’s own war on science. Now Andrew Weaver, one of the scientists they have attacked, is fighting back and suing them for defamation. The press release from Weaver’s lawyer says:

University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, launched a lawsuit today in BC Supreme Court against three writers at the National Post (and the newspaper as a whole), over a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.

In a statement released at the same time the suit was filed, Dr. Weaver said, “I asked The National Post to do the right thing – to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused.”

Dr. Weaver’s statement of claim not only asks for a Court injunction requiring The National Post to remove all of the false allegations from its Internet websites, but also seeks an unprecedented Court order requiring the newspaper to assist Dr. Weaver in removing the defamatory National Post articles from the many other Internet sites where they have been re-posted.


“If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the Internet forever. They’ll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming,” said Weaver.

The suit names Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, columnist Peter Foster, reporter Kevin Libin and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as several still-unidentified editors and copy editors. It seeks general, aggravated damages, special and exemplary damages and legal costs in relation to articles by Foster on December 9, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web”), Corcoran on December 10, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web II”) and January 27, 2010 (“Climate Agency going up in flames”), and Libin on February 2, 2010 (“So much for pure science”).

Desmogblog has Weaver’s 48 page Statement of Claim.

Comments

  1. #1 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Shorter AGWSkeptic:

    I conveniently forget that Coleman and Monckton have already been threatening to sue climate activists left and right. Therefore, suing people over climate science is wrong.

  2. #2 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Zibethicus:

    > Since nothing else will stop them slandering, then people are simply going to have to hit them in the only place where they feel anything at all – the Wallet.

    My thoughts exactly. Some people will write and publish any nonsense just for the money; the only way to make them pay any attention to facts is to cause them to make less money.

    No impunity for lies!

  3. #3 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    AGW,Skeptic, there is nothing wrong with the term ‘denialist’– it describes someone who ins in denial about AGW, or who denies its existence. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Honestly, we have been over this so many times here and elsewhere. Invoking the Holocaust is a lame and convenient ploy by the contrarians to try and defend their baseless position, and to detract from the vacuity of their ‘science’.

    Your friend McIntyre uses terms like “crack cocaine” and “jihadist”, so let us bring him before the courts too.

    Unlike you moniker suggests, I doubt very much that you are a true skeptic. I love the spin that you and your ilk are trying to put on this. It is entertaining to watch you squirm and do your best to defend the criminal antics of Corcoran et al.

    Anyhow, this is good news, and not for the reasons that you believe.

  4. #4 Lars Karlsson
    April 23, 2010

    AGWSkeptic:

    >Maybe they can also be sued for using the word “denialist” in a transparent
    >attempt to associate anyone who disagrees with them with Holocaust denial.

    As opposed to the very subtle and sophisticated use of the term ["Hitler Youth"](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/11/monckton-calls-activists-hitler-youth) by a certain person on the “skeptical” side.

  5. #5 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    I conveniently forget that Coleman and Monckton have already been threatening to sue climate activists left and right. Therefore, suing people over climate science is wrong.

    Where did I say that it was wrong, or that Coleman and Monckton were right? Is this SOP for you alarmists, putting words into people’s mouths? All I’m saying is that y’all should be careful what you wish for, as you might end up getting it.

  6. #6 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    AGW,Skeptic, there is nothing wrong with the term ‘denialist’– it describes someone who ins in denial about AGW, or who denies its existence. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Honestly, we have been over this so many times here and elsewhere. Invoking the Holocaust is a lame and convenient ploy by the contrarians to try and defend their baseless position, and to detract from the vacuity of their ‘science’.

    So, if you were actually trying to invoke Holocaust denial, would you own up to it?

    That’s what I thought.

    And being in denial about that makes you a “denialist” too.

    I also deny the existence of the Christian “god”, which, like AGW doesn’t exist. Does that make me a “denialist of Christianity”?

    As opposed to the very subtle and sophisticated use of the term “Hitler Youth” by a certain person on the “skeptical” side.

    Shorter Lars:

    “The denialists do it too!! The denialists do it too!!!!!11one!!1″

  7. #7 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Shorter AGWSkeptic:

    I never said suing people over climate science is wrong, I only hinted it’s wrong. And I didn’t say Coleman and Monckton were right in threatening to sue activists. But they can sue, though I didn’t say that.

  8. #8 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Shorter AGWSkeptic #106:

    1. The word “denialist”, which doesn’t contain any traces of the words “Holocaust” or “Hitler” or “Nazi”, is a blatant reference to Hitler.
    2. “Hitler Youth”, however, is emphatically not a reference to Hitler, despite containing the word “Hitler”.
    3. Therefore, Global Warmists Are Closed-Minded.

  9. #9 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    AGW “So, if you were actually trying to invoke Holocaust denial, would you own up to it? That’s what I thought. And being in denial about that makes you a “denialist” too.

    This is surreal– are you serious? That is quite the straw man argument. Not to mention distorting what I said– apparently distorting is not something that only Corcoran (who is in denial about AGW) does. R e a d what I wrote c a r e f u l l y. I have explained what I meant when I use the term “denial” as it pertains to AGW, and AGW alone.

    You clearly have no idea what Dr. Weaver’s case is about. Follow the link above and read his statement of claim.

    Bye, bye denialist troll. I’m done “feeding” you.

    PS: If you knew your facts, which you seem to not, you would know that Monckton also made that statement to a Jewish person in Copenhagen who lost relatives during the Holocaust. Even after the person explained that to Monckton, Monckton carried on saying it to his face.

  10. #10 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Shorter Frank the Lying Moron:

    “See how many non-sequiturs I can construct in one post! Ain’t I special???!!!!one!!11″

    And you know damn well that people associate “denialism” with the Holocaust, unless you are in denial about this obvious fact, of course.

  11. #11 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Are trolls such as “AGWSkeptic” frantically trying to collect their pay cheques for their efforts in spamming inactivist talking points? Perhaps now, with the climate denial industry slowly collapsing, the players are now trying to cash out as quickly as they can. Will they need a bailout from taxpayers?

  12. #12 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    This is surreal– are you serious? That is quite the straw man argument. Not to mention distorting what I said– apparently distorting is not something that only Corcoran (who is in denial about AGW) does. R e a d what I wrote c a r e f u l l y. I have explained what I meant when I use the term “denial” as it pertains to AGW, and AGW alone.

    And how would we tell if you were lying about that? It’s a bunch of self-serving crap, something you alarmists have in abundance.

    You clearly have no idea what Dr. Weaver’s case is about. Follow the link above and read his statement of claim.

    I did. But then that wouldn’t matter to a lying denialist like yourself would it?

    PS: If you knew your facts, which you seem to not, you would know that Monckton also made that statement to a Jewish person in Copenhagen who lost relatives during the Holocaust. Even after the person explained that to Monckton, Monckton carried on saying it to his face.

    And this is relevant how? Talk about strawmen!

  13. #13 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Shorter AGWSkeptic:

    1. I use the term “non sequitur“! It’s Latin, which means I’m profound!
    2. It’s “obvious”, using transcendental methods outside of logic, proof, or evidence, that the word “denialist” is a reference to Hitler, while the phrase “Hitler Youth” is not a reference to Hitler.
    3. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.

  14. #14 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Hey Frank the Lying Halfwit:

    Why don’t you go back to your conspiracy theorist blog, or “scholarly journal”, or whatever the hell it is, and dream up more tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? The adults here are trying to have a conversation.

  15. #15 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Shorter AGWSkeptic #112:

    1. I don’t care what you said! I know you’re lying! YOU’RE LYING! YOU’RE LYING! YOU’RE LYING!
    2. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.

  16. #16 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Frank the Lying Imbecile:

    while the phrase “Hitler Youth” is not a reference to Hitler.

    Where did I say this? Please learn to read for comprehension. I guess putting words into people’s mouths really is par for the course with you lot.

  17. #17 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Shorter AGWSkeptic #112:

    1. I don’t care what you said! I know you’re lying! YOU’RE LYING! YOU’RE LYING! YOU’RE LYING!
    2. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.

  18. #18 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    I know you’re lying! YOU’RE LYING! YOU’RE LYING! YOU’RE LYING!

    Which you demonstrate by putting words into my mouth. How typical.

  19. #19 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Longer AGWSkeptic:

    I never actually said that “Hitler Youth” is not a reference to Hitler. However, for all intents and purposes, I’m treating “Hitler Youth” as anything other than a reference to Hitler. Which, by the way, is not the same as saying outright that “Hitler Youth” as anything other than a reference to Hitler.

    Also, in the same way, for all intents and purposes I’m treating “Frank the Lying Moron” and “Frank the Lying Imbecile” as not instances of name-calling. This is not to say that I consider “Frank the Lying Moron” and “Frank the Lying Imbecile” as not instances of name-calling.

    Note too, dear alarmists, that I have read Weaver’s Statement of Claim. This is why I’m so fixated on something other than what’s written in Weaver’s Statement of Claim.

    Therefore, it’ll be wrong to say that I’m a troll. Which is not the same thing as saying that I’m not a troll, because I never said that. However, for all intents and purposes you should treat me as, well, not a troll. Because I think I’ll be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Which is not the same as saying that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. However, for all intents and purposes, you should understand that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Although I’m not really saying that I will be very angry if…

    Therefore, global warming is a hoax.

  20. #20 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    AGWSkeptic has now followed the predictable path of resorting to ad hom, vitriol, insults and invective to try and substitute for the absolute vacuity of his/her argument.

    How about we all stop feeding the troll and move on? One parting note, regarding the “Hitler youth”, from AGWSkeptic at #106:

    “As opposed to the very subtle and sophisticated use of the term “Hitler Youth” by a certain person on the “skeptical” side.
    Shorter Lars:
    “The denialists do it too!! The denialists do it too!!!!!11one!!1″”

  21. #21 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Therefore, it’ll be wrong to say that I’m a troll. Which is not the same thing as saying that I’m not a troll, because I never said that. However, for all intents and purposes you should treat me as, well, not a troll. Because I think I’ll be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Which is not the same as saying that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. However, for all intents and purposes, you should understand that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Although I’m not really saying that I will be very angry if…

    Classic projection. Not to mention Dunning-Kruger. Congrats, Frank!

  22. #22 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Maple Leaf @ 109:

    Bye, bye denialist troll. I’m done “feeding” you.

    Then you post @ 120.

    Were you lying then? Are you lying now?

  23. #23 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    Poor AGW skeptic, s/he does not seem to understand what the DK effect is.

    This IS entertaining, pass the popcorn…

    Let us not forget that Dr. Lewis is taking Jonathan Leake to task for misrepresenting his views and science. The scientists are fighting back and it is about time.

    So it is hardly surprising that the denialists’ mignons are fighting back and doing everything they can do to try and create a smoke screen to protect their masters.

    Now if only they could present some facts to defend the actions of the NP…..

  24. #24 frank
    April 23, 2010

    Longer AGWSkeptic #114 and #121:

    I’m an adult in this conversation, and although I never actually claimed outright that I’m an adult in this conversation, for all intents and purposes you should actually treat it as an adult in this conversation, because I’ll be very angry if you don’t, even if I’m not saying that outright.

    You can see how adult I am when I use phrases like “Frank the Lying Moron”, “Frank the Lying Halfwit”, and “Frank the Lying Imbecile”. Phrases such as these are the hallmark of a civilized, adult conversation. Therefore, I am clearly not a childish troll, and the actual childish troll here is Frank.

    Projection! Dunning-Kruger! These aren’t Latin words, but they’re sure big words! Ooh! Can’t you see how adult I am? And I’m a skeptic! A skeptic! Who can be more adult than a global warming skeptic? Eh?

    And more evidence of my extremely adult adulthood can be seen from the fact that, in a thread talking about Weaver’s defamation suit, I insist on talking about all sorts of things other than Weaver’s defamation suit. Trying to talk about a topic on a thread other than the topic of the initial post is a sure sign that I’m trying to start a civilized, reasoned, adult conversation.

    And so, let’s keep talking about something, anything, anything except the topic of the initial post: Weaver’s defamation suit.

  25. #25 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    Oh dear, the troll thinks I’m actually talking to him/her, when I’m pointing out the vacuity of their “argument” to others here.

  26. #26 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Frank, yet another splendid demonstration of Dunning-Kruger! Either that or you’re a 3-year-old having a tantrum. You alarmists never cease to entertain me!

    And by the way, my original point was related to Weaver’s lawsuit in that it was addressing potential fallout from it if it is successful. You would know this if you actually possessed any reading comprehension skills.

    And your last few posts had everything do to with the lawsuit, right Frank? Oh, right, you were engaging in your favorite activity: projection.

  27. #28 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    KenH @127,

    Wow, just wow. They really are preaching to the party faithful, with plenty of rhetoric thrown in for good measure.

    Solomon’s article is actually quite tame compared to what he normally writes. I get the feeling that he sourced much of his information from CA….

    I’d be curious to see how much he and McIntyre converse, if at all.

  28. #29 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Oh dear, the troll thinks I’m actually talking to him/her, when I’m pointing out the vacuity of their “argument” to others here.

    Here’s a clue, moron: when you post anything on a web site accessible by the public, you are talking to everyone who reads it.

  29. #30 Chris O'Neill
    April 23, 2010

    AGW”Skeptic”:

    And you know damn well that people associate “denialism” with the Holocaust, unless you are in denial about this obvious fact, of course.

    Ah yes, there is but one case where denial does not refer to the Holocaust and AGW”Skeptic” has found it. Clever boy.

  30. #31 Holly Stick
    April 23, 2010

    Attention AGW Skeptic, Andrew30, and any other trolls infesting this place; you’d better go read Weaver’s Statement of Claim and try to remember if you are one of the anonymous commenters who is also being sued. Could YOU be John Doe or Richard Roe? Think it over.

  31. #32 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    A couple of recent columns in the National Post:

    Refreshing to see some honesty from the MSM for once on this issue.

  32. #33 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Attention AGW Skeptic, Andrew30, and any other trolls infesting this place; you’d better go read Weaver’s Statement of Claim and try to remember if you are one of the anonymous commenters who is also being sued. Could YOU be John Doe or Richard Roe? Think it over.

    Bring it on, Bubba. I would welcome the opportunity to kick some alarmist ass in court.

  33. #34 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    Oh dear,

    “I would welcome the opportunity to kick some alarmist ass in court.”

    Someone is delusional and seems to have anger issues.

    Wouldn’t a true skeptic say something like, “Yes, Foster got most things right (in their opinion, not reality), but I think they got X or Y wrong.”

    That is just one of many issue with those who claim to be ‘skeptical’, their skepticism is uni-directional.

    “Refreshing to see some honesty from the MSM for once on this issue.”

    Isn’t that something strikingly similar to what Palin said about Faux News?

    Those in denial about AGW are completely blind to the tactics and modus operandi of the denialati. Maybe some of them should read “Smoke Screen” by Philip Hilts and compare how these tactics currently being employed mimic those used by the tobacco industry to attack the integrity of scientists researching links between cancers and smoking. Thank God they did not have the internet back then.

  34. #35 AGWSkeptic
    April 23, 2010

    Someone is delusional and seems to have anger issues.

    This from one who babbles a few paragraphs later about “denialati” and postulates tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Project much?

    Isn’t that something strikingly similar to what Palin said about Faux News?

    Congratulations! A straw man and ad hominem in the same sentence! It’s also similar, by the way, to the way you and your ilk are saying about this lawsuit.

    Thank God they did not have the internet back then.

    Why would anyone want to thank a non-existent deity, unless said individual was delusional?

  35. #36 MapleLeaf
    April 23, 2010

    I wish people would learn to use ad hominem correctly…..

    Anyhow, Dr. Weaver has overwhelming support from the scientific community, Dr. Lewis too. In contrast, Corocoran and his ilk seem to have the support of some, shall we say, distinctly murky characters who are wholly disinterested in the facts and reality.

    Does anyone here know if this makes it past discovery, how the ruling will be made? That is, by jury or by judge?

  36. #37 Marion Delgado
    April 23, 2010

    With troll input, we actually have a rising trend in background noise, making data analysis harder :)

    Trollogenic global confusing.

  37. #38 Dave H
    April 23, 2010

    Subjects where the term “denier” is commonly bandied about:

    1. Holocaust denial – or indeed, any historical atrocity
    2. Evolution denial
    3. Vaccine safety denial
    4. AGW denial
    5. HIV/AIDS denial

    Subjects where those using the term “denier” equate use of that term with denying the holocaust:

    1. Holocaust denial

    Subjects where those on the receiving end of the label “denier” use the holocaust as a cheap and dishonest diversionary tactic to attack the legitimacy of that label:

    1. All of the above.

    Back on the subject at hand – I’m not sure if it’ll fly (or if I’m reading it wrong – IANAL), but it seems to me that Weaver is trying to hold them to account for allowing the publishing of defamatory cmoments from posters on the message board. That by allowing the comments, they have tacitly approved their content, and that the whole (the article + comments) constitutes a publication in its entirety.

  38. #39 Mark Francis
    April 23, 2010

    “it seems to me that Weaver is trying to hold them to account for allowing the publishing of defamatory cmoments from posters on the message board. That by allowing the comments, they have tacitly approved their content, and that the whole (the article + comments) constitutes a publication in its entirety.”

    There’s nothing unusual about that, in Canada at least. The National Post is, after all, providing the publishing tool and is hosting and generating revenue from it. What the law expects is for the host to identify who the posters are, and to remove any comments which are libelous upon being notified as such. If the host fails to do so, then the host owns the comments.

    In general, Canadian libel law allows the plaintiff to sue anyone and everyone in the chain of publication and circulation. So if a newspaper is sued for libel, it is possible to sue everyone from the copy boy to the corner store.

  39. #40 Gaz
    April 23, 2010

    AGWsceptic may prefer to be referred to as a NAGWaD, a term I proposed in the [ABC chairman thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist.php), comment #103, a while back:

    How about “non-holocaust anthropogenic global warming deniers”, or “NAGWaDs”?

    AGWsceptic the NAGWaD. Yep. Everyone’s happy.

  40. #41 Zibethicus
    April 23, 2010

    #140: “How about “non-holocaust anthropogenic global warming deniers”, or “NAGWaDs”?”

    *

    How about ‘geociders’?

    The would-be killers of the planet through criminal negligence.

  41. #42 Lotharsson
    April 23, 2010

    Oh my, there has been some entertainment while I’ve been away.

    As I said on another thread, some of the “skeptics” seem to mimic some forms (and vocabulary) of valid argument without generally providing the substance to go with it.

    I think I need more popcorn :-)

  42. #43 Rudhy Haugeneder. Canada
    April 23, 2010

    The National Post rejects that humans contribute to Global Warming or climate change. And its libel insurance will ensure NP readers never get a balanced story and the scientific facts. Hopefully, the insurer will demand better.

  43. #44 Mike
    April 24, 2010

    It’s amazing what you learn when talking to real genuine “sceptics”.

    My mother-in-law is a long term smoker and is in denial about the effects on her health. She is absolutely a smoking denialist.

    However I was completely unaware that this was a systematic attempt by myself to associate her with Holocaust denial.

    I would like to personally thank AGWsceptic for pointing out the obvious connotation of referring to someone as a “denialist”, and while she continues to cough and choke herself into a terrible state each and every morning after waking up, shall henceforth simply refer to her as being “sceptical” about the link between smoking and certain diseases.

  44. #45 Gaz
    April 24, 2010

    Careful, Mike, any moment now the Holocaust deniers are going to start calling themselves Holocaust sceptics. Then where would we be?

  45. #46 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2010

    [Mike](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.php#comment-2459193).

    If you use Google Scholar to search for “cognitive dissonance”, you’ll see that a significant proportion of the hits have to do with a smoking context.

    Denial of harm and cognitive dissonance go hand in hand, it seems.

  46. #47 SteveC
    April 24, 2010

    Mike (144)

    A similar scenario has recently unfolded here.

    According to previously agreed-to agreements, it was my partner’s turn to take the rubbish out last week. The absence of the bin on the roadside is a data point that is in question; however, the presence in the yard of a full-ish bin one day after the regular bin-emptying day appeared to indicate that my partner had bin (sorry, been) neglectful of their duty. In the process of subsequent questioning, my partner said it had in fact bin (damn, been) my turn. I accused my partner of denying it was their turn. In my folly, I now realise my accusations that my partner is an “It’s-your-turn-to-take-the-rubbish-bin-out” denier are not just wholly in error: in my ignorance I have equated their actions (or non-actions) with that of the Jewish Holocaust to boot.

    As to reparation, I must now refer to myself as being an “It’s-your-turn-to-take-the-rubbish-bin-out” sceptic.

  47. #48 stewart
    April 24, 2010

    RE: #136
    This is a civil matter, between Weaver and the NP, so it’s judge alone. Canada only has jury trials for criminal matters. (cf. Wikipedia on jury trials and links to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
    I’m not a lawyer, but my experience as a witness in Canadian courts has been in front of judge alone in civil trials, or a jury in criminal trials. Canadian judges are appointed, like in most civilized countries, from a list provided by their peers and the law societies, so there’s few dingbats and no politicians on the bench.
    When we’re talking about lawsuits and deniers/septics, don’t forget Tim Ball suing Dan Johnson and the Calgary Herald, which was eventually withdrawn, and served only to damage the deniers credibility. A useful outcome, is that why the ‘skeptics’ haven’t mentioned it above?

  48. #49 MapleLeaf
    April 24, 2010

    Thanks Stewart @148.

    Aah, yes Tim Ball. The man just does not know when to stop discrediting himself– even the uber right wing Calgary Herald won’t touch him after the fiasco you referred to. Most recent example of Ball shooting himself in the foot was when he spoke to students at UofVic in Canada. Ball was expecting a gullible and friendly crowd, was he ever wrong. The students set him straight.

    IMHO, Dr. Weaver has a solid case. There are just so many blatant falsehoods in Corcoran’s and Foster’s pieces that it will be difficult for the judge to dismiss all of them. These “journalists” should be fired. Gunter too. And maybe that will happen if and when the Toronto Star buys out the NP.

  49. #50 Holly Stick
    April 25, 2010

    Desmogblog posted articles about Tim Ball’s libel suit here:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/dan-johnson

    If the Toronto Star buys the NP, I’d like to see Gunter, Solomon and the others eat their words first, then get fired.

  50. #51 pough
    April 25, 2010

    Unfortunately, a successful lawsuit will have a chilling effect on journalists who want to libel honest scientists…

    Oh, wait. That’s a good thing.

  51. #52 Ron Cram
    October 19, 2010

    A blogger here is saying FOX News went to court to assert its right to lie. I doubt that. And it would not surprise me if FOX did not want to sue for allowing such tripe to be seen here.

  52. #53 NJ
    October 19, 2010

    Ron Cram @ 152:

    Apparently you either cannot be bothered to (or simply cannot) read the information in the link provided in comment #5, which demonstrates that Fox did win the right to lie in court.

    Rather unsurprising that a Fox-bot has no higher cognitive functions…

  53. #54 Gaz
    October 19, 2010

    Just to clarify this ambiguity

    ..which demonstrates that Fox did win the right to lie in court.

    Fox won, in court, the right to lie to its readers/viewers/listeners.

    Lying in court (ie perjury) would still be a big no-no.

  54. #55 Wow
    October 20, 2010

    > ..which demonstrates that Fox did win the right to lie, in court.

    Would maybe have fixed it.

    Rather like the Demotivational poster “Punctuation”, if you’ve seen it…

    ;-)

Current ye@r *