On Aug 16, 11:58 pm, Doug Smith <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 7:09 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m>
> > wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> I think there's a good possibility that you are a wife beating scum
> >>> based on the national statistics, and my imagination.
> >> I'm not sure about the scum part, but since I've never been married, you probability estimate is optimistic.
>
> >> Dan
>
> > OK that allows for date rape, and other abuse, especially if we use
> > N.O.W'.s figures.
> > The point is it's ridiculous, and irresponsible to make actionable
> > accusations without solid proof. Harley-Davidson is one entity that
> > I'm incredibly familiar with who has a huge team of lawyers that sue
> > anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image". They don't lose
> > many of them. Maybe since Disco is going out they wont bother, but if
> > they re planning on returning at some point this might be exactly the
> > right case to serve, and make Chris recant and apologize the way
> > Schilling backpeddled on steroids when he was under oath in front of
> > Congress.
> > Bill C
>
> What's so ridiculous? That someone (Horner) can't say something without
> a bunch of people jumping up and down talking lawyerese and thinking
> about slander? That someone can't say some **** and have a bunch of
> people hold their statements to burdens of proof as dictated by US Laws?
> Give me a break, the man said something that makes sense to a lot of
> people. I make conjectures all the time about all things in life. I
> think most people do. I don't see why I, or anyone else, cannot make
> statements based on observations and what we think are reasonable causes
> and effects of the observations.
>
> There are a lot of things sick in this world. Doping in cycling isn't
> too bad in the scheme of things. Some things jump out at me as being
> waay sicker. Say, a company that keeps a huge team of lawyer that sue
> anyone and everyone to protect their "brand image." That, in my mind
> and probably a lot of other people, is just plain sick. Sicker than
> making dubiously slanderous statements with regards to doping in
> cycling. I have no idea if you actually support the mentality of a mob
> of lawyers; I hope that you don't. The world needs a hell of a lot less
> of that kind of thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Horner isn't Joe Blow on the outside. He's in a position as a member
of a small group, at the highest level, where he has knowledge we
don't, and could rightfully be considered, at least, a professional
opinion on it. That changes the status of anything he has to say and
gives it more credibility. Therefore anything he says carries more
weight and is potentially more damaging. TYhere's a responsibility
that goes with being in a select position, and courts have found this
over the years. They hold insiders and experts to different standards
due to their superior knowledge and credibility in their subject.
To answer Ben, that's why it's OK for most of us to blather, and I'm
careful about this due to being an infrequently working official, but
not for insiders to make claims they can't prove, which others will
judge to be credible just based on their position.
Disco, and others can afford to ignore Joe Blow with no damage, not
sure if they will ignore Chris Horner. Lot's of companies wouldn't and
don't when their brand image is at stake.
Bill C
