Comments (11)
sorted by:
2
HighFrequency 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe they misquoted her by only reporting the first part of what she said. She did not backpedal. She said claims were awaiting verification, or something like that.

Discovery. Bring it on.

-2
ZyklonBen [S] -2 points ago +1 / -3

I believe

So do you know or do you believe it? If you think they misquoted her why don't you provide the full quote?

1
HighFrequency 1 point ago +1 / -0

You cant read? It says right there “I believe...”

Which I meant as “I believe...”

Which clearly means that I am not claiming to KNOW AS FACT.

I did not recall where I read the full statement or I would have provided a link.

But I was unaware that we are no longer allowed to even make a comment on anything here—even when specifically acknowledging said comment to be OPINION—with providing links or back up.

Geez. Chill, dude.

-5
ZyklonBen [S] -5 points ago +1 / -6

How will the Qult spin this one?

2
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
-1
ZyklonBen [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

Please feel free to share your thoughts on this.

i think that it is hilarious that you take the word of some random people as gospel as if they were qualified lawyers with intimate knowledge of the case.

Whatever confirms your bias, right?

0
Questionable 0 points ago +1 / -1

"i think that it is hilarious that you take the word of some random people as gospel"

And you unironically wish for me to trust your words on this matter? If so, you've gone about this all wrong.

-2
ZyklonBen [S] -2 points ago +1 / -3

No, you do not need to trust my words at all. This is why I posted the link to the article that contains the statement by the lawyers.

What kind of fucking stupid question is this?

1
Questionable 1 point ago +1 / -0

What kind of fucking stupid question is this?

It is a Question of your motives, and humanity. As you do not seem capable of acting in good faith, or helping your fellow man.