[N_Fiddledog]

My claim is Ablonczy's has said nothing that can be shown to be false. Your claim is she has said nothing that can be shown to be true even though I put the evidence right in front of your face.

According to you I can't make my claim, because you can't disprove it, so that makes you automatically correct. Huh?

You keep wanting to bring up the Ezra trial. That one's in appeal, but very well I followed it, so let's talk about it. The judge found Ezra claimed the guy Ezra called an anti-semetic liar was not shown to be an anti-semetic liar. Whether the judge was correct or just another Progressive writing law from the bench is immaterial.

He required proof. Call it evidence if you like. You know what I mean. Don't get into semantics.

In this case Ablonczy alleged there have been claims of connections between Cair Canada and CAIR. That is true. She alleged the blogger, Pointe de Bascule offered support for that claim. That is true. I gave you a link to Pointe de Bascule. I'm not sure if it's all in that one, but he offers links to prima facie evidence. She alleged CAIR had been shown to have connections to terrorist organizations. This is true. Among other things CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the holy land foundation terrorist trial.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/doc ... sc/360.pdf

So when Ablonczy says allegations have been made and outlines how they were made and all those allegations can be shown to be factual, what do you call that?

You seem to be saying it doesn't matter if that evidence exists, because you say you can't prove it doesn't because that would be asking you to prove a negative.

That's nonsense, of course. It it was true somebody could allege something as fact, and you could say it's not a fact in a trial, then automatically win the suit, because you can't prove a negative, how could anybody say anything without being automatically guilty of libel?

You're saying you can't allege something is true, because somebody can allege it isn't and he is automatically correct, because you can't prove a negative.

That's nuts.

Admittedly that does seem to be a honest representation of the way justice can work in Progworld and it does appear to be what Ezra faced in his original trial. We can only hope he can find a more reality based judge when his appeal comes up.

Speaking of reality though, here in reality we can continue to ask "What did Ablonczy allege that cannot be shown by overwhelming evidence to be considered factual, or if not what evidence do you have to show it is not?"

Specifically give an Ablonczy quote. I'll make the case for why it's a fact. You show me the evidence you have to say it is not. You will require more than a claim from of "no I didn't" from the party the claim is being made about. No, the NDP's claim of "You'd be sued if you said that someplace else" is not evidence.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

My claim is Ablonczy's has said nothing that can be shown to be false. Your claim is she has said nothing that can be shown to be true even though I put the evidence right in front of your face.

No, you put hearsay in our face. Nothing shown there would stand up in the craziest of kangaroo courts.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

According to you I can't make my claim, because you can't disprove it, so that makes you automatically correct. Huh?

No, now you are just being obtuse.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You keep wanting to bring up the Ezra trial. That one's in appeal, but very well I followed it, so let's talk about it. The judge found Ezra claimed the guy Ezra called an anti-semetic liar was not shown to be an anti-semetic liar. Whether the judge was correct or just another Progressive writing law from the bench is immaterial.

He required proof. Call it evidence if you like. You know what I mean. Don't get into semantics.

No, I didn't. Ezra is an example of saying things that aren't true, and getting hauled into court over them. Call it 'Progressive' if you want, the rest of us refer to it as 'Justice'.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

In this case Ablonczy alleged there have been claims of connections between Cair Canada and CAIR. That is true. She alleged the blogger, Pointe de Bascule offered support for that claim. That is true. I gave you a link to Pointe de Bascule. I'm not sure if it's all in that one, but he offers links to prima facie evidence. She alleged CAIR had been shown to have connections to terrorist organizations. This is true. Among other things CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the holy land foundation terrorist trial.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/doc ... sc/360.pdf

So when Ablonczy says allegations have been made and outlines how they were made and all those allegations can be shown to be factual, what do you call that?

Hearsay. Just because she quotes someone else making the allegations doesn't constitute proof of a crime. Show me something you could take to a Crown Council to have them charged with Aiding a Terrorist Organization, or it's all just unproven talk. "Unindicted co-conspirator" is just another term for 'we have no evidence'.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You seem to be saying it doesn't matter if that evidence exists, because you say you can't prove it doesn't because that would be asking you to prove a negative.

No. Definitely over your IQ level. Actual evidence can be proven to exist, or not. Santa Clause cannot be proven to not exist. A negative can not be proven logically. You can try to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists {bless his noodly appendage}, but failing to prove he exists is not proof he doesn't exist.

The same goes as to whether NCCM supports a terrorist organization. That can be proven. It is not possible to prove they don't support a terrorist organization.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's nonsense, of course. It it was true somebody could allege something as fact, and you could say it's not a fact in a trial, then automatically win the suit, because you can't prove a negative, how could anybody say anything without being automatically guilty of libel?

Now you are just confusing yourself. If it's a fact, it's been proven. Terrorist links to the NCCM have not been proven, they have been alleged.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You're saying you can't allege something is true, because somebody can allege it isn't and he is automatically correct, because you can't prove a negative.

That's nuts.

No. Way over your IQ I guess. True/False can be proven. Polarity, or the Negative, cannot.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Admittedly that does seem to be a honest representation of the way justice can work in Progworld and it does appear to be what Ezra faced in his original trial. We can only hope he can find a more reality based judge when his appeal comes up.

Assumption of Innocence is not 'progish'. That's just your way of deflecting a piss poor argument.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Speaking of reality though, here in reality we can continue to ask "What did Ablonczy allege that cannot be shown by overwhelming evidence to be considered factual, or if not what evidence do you have to show it is not?"

What she alleges can indeed be shown by evidence. However, none has been offered. And again, I do not have to show innocence, because innocence is assumed. No, that is not the logical fallacy of ignorance, that is practical measure that our justice system has chosen specifically because the burden to prove one's innocence is impossible.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Specifically give an Ablonczy quote. I'll make the case for why it's a fact. You show me the evidence you have to say it is not. You will require more than a claim from of "no I didn't" from the party the claim is being made about. No, the NDP's claim of "You'd be sued if you said that someplace else" is not evidence.

I never said it was evidence, it is a fact. She has accused a group of a crime, and that group has not been convicted of that crime. That is the definition of Libel, and as Mr. Harper and Mr. Levant are finding out, you can't just go around accusing people of crimes they didn't commit.

[N_Fiddledog]

So basically strut, strut, pose, pose, blather, divert, but then...

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She has accused a group of a crime,

Except she didn't. She made an allegation claiming specific allegations had been made elsewhere and there appeared to be evidence to support them.

This is why I demand a specific quote from Ablonczy and why you refuse to give one.

You know you're wrong and think you can blather your way out of it.

Deny that? Fine. Give me the specific quote from Ablonczy you claim is actionable and can't be supported.

Do that or basically all you're saying is blah, blah, blah.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Assumption of Innocence is not 'progish'.

Assumption of innocence goes to the defendant. The NDP guy claims Ablonczy could be sued, right? What would that make her?

On the other hand balking at evidence, while assuming fantasy is fact, because it pleases one to believe so is totally in the province of Prog. It's called fantasy based thinking. Along with "group-think" it is a thing the thing called Prog is well-known for.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So basically strut, strut, pose, pose, blather, divert, but then...

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

She has accused a group of a crime,

Except she didn't. She made an allegation claiming specific allegations had been made elsewhere and there appeared to be evidence to support them.

This is why I demand a specific quote from Ablonczy and why you refuse to give one.

You know you're wrong and think you can blather your way out of it.

Deny that? Fine. Give me the specific quote from Ablonczy you claim is actionable and can't be supported.

Do that or basically all you're saying is blah, blah, blah.

I did give you a direct quote. She accused NCCM of supporting a terrorist organization, which is a crime in Canada. This allegation has not been proven in court, and is therefore libel. If she were not enjoying parliamentary privilege, she'd be sued just like Harper and Levant are being, for the same thing.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Assumption of Innocence is not 'progish'.

Assumption of innocence goes to the defendant. The NDP guy claims Ablonczy could be sued, right? What would that make her?

There is no accused/defendant in tort law. Libel is a tort, not a crime. Do you even understand the legal system?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

On the other hand balking at evidence, while assuming fantasy is fact, because it pleases one to believe so is totally in the province of Prog. It's called fantasy based thinking. Along with "group-think" it is a thing the thing called Prog is well-known for.

You have presented no facts, therefore you are guilty of your own distraction. You, by your own logic, are therefore a 'Prog'. Please, use the pointless term 'prog' some more. It only shows us you have no other arguments, so you have to resort to name calling.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I did give you a direct quote.

No. You did not. A direct quote from Ablonczy would look like this.

$1:

"The question I have for you though, and uh...this will not surprise you, but as you know, there is a continuing series of allegations about your organization..."

At this point (if you ever gather up the courage to reach it) I can show you why that specific claim is based on fact. It's true. If it's true there is no case for libel, so what's your point?

Go ahead give me this quote you claim is a lie. Can't do it can you? Because you know she said nothing that cannot be supported by fact.

$1:

There is no accused/defendant in tort law. Libel is a tort, not a crime. Do you even understand the legal system?

Isn't there? Check it out Professor.

$1:

Tort Law

A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings to provide relief for persons who have suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others. The person who sustains injury or suffers pecuniary damage as the result of tortious conduct is known as the plaintiff, and the person who is responsible for inflicting the injury and incurs liability for the damage is known as the defendant or tortfeasor.

or check out these to see the term used in reference to tort law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_tort

$1:

You have presented no facts, therefore you are guilty of your own distraction.

I linked you to the blog Ablonczy said was there. It was. That blog has links to documents such as the letter I showed you from, I forget which official, but there are also letters from FBI agents showing the connection between CAIR and terrorist funding. Ablonczy claimed you would find that sort of thing. Again she only stated a fact.

You have offered nothing other than a lot of boasting with strutting poses, under the guise of general and unsupported claims, flavored with insults.

You can't even offer a direct quote from Ablonczy as to what you claim is a lie. Kind of gutless, don't you think? If we're going to be insulting, I mean.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I did give you a direct quote.

No. You did not. A direct quote from Ablonczy would look like this.

$1:

"The question I have for you though, and uh...this will not surprise you, but as you know, there is a continuing series of allegations about your organization..."

At this point (if you ever gather up the courage to reach it) I can show you why that specific claim is based on fact. It's true. If it's true there is no case for libel, so what's your point?

Go ahead give me this quote you claim is a lie. Can't do it can you? Because you know she said nothing that cannot be supported by fact.

$1:

Diane Ablonczy used her allotted time to "put on the record" what she described as "a continuing series of allegations" that the NCCM has ties to groups
that have expressed support for "Islamic terrorist groups," including Hamas.

I'm not sure how much more of a direct quote, taken from the video of her saying it that you would want. Where has the NCCM ever supported "Islamic Terror Groups"? Show me this quote, this evidence? I have shown you evidence that members of the CPC have made racist remarks, so by the same logic the Prime Minister must be a Racist, right?

Show me this 'evidence' or a conviction in a court of law. Until then, it's hearsay.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

You have presented no facts, therefore you are guilty of your own distraction.

I linked you to the blog Ablonczy said was there. It was. That blog has links to documents such as the letter I showed you from, I forget which official, but there are also letters from FBI agents showing the connection between CAIR and terrorist funding. Ablonczy claimed you would find that sort of thing. Again she only stated a fact.

You have offered nothing other than a lot of boasting with strutting poses, under the guise of general and unsupported claims, flavored with insults.

You can't even offer a direct quote from Ablonczy as to what you claim is a lie. Kind of gutless, don't you think? If we're going to be insulting, I mean.

Oooo! A Blog! I can show blogs that say pretty much everything from the second coming of Christ to Aliens and Reptiles control us all. Big deal. Show me court records! Show me something real.

And you don't have the courage to admit she is setting herself up for a libel suit, just as the Prime Minister has and as Ezra Levant has been found guilty of.