Even though Rachel's reply to me was removed, I can still see her comment in my email, so I will answer.
Rachel, I believe that the "burden of proof" is a legal term, and if there was legal action taken by one of the parties involved then ,yes, it would apply.
It seems as though you are accusing me of lying about....something. Not sure what.
I agree that the term "burden of proof" is not strictly used as a legal term. However Rachel's comment seemed to imply that she believed Steven was legally required (at this time) to "prove" his accusations about coordinated harrassment were true.
Calm down. No one is accusing you of lying, I was simply showing you that "burden of proof" isn't only a legal term.
Just because you inferred Rachel's meaning doesn't mean she made the implication you think she did. Your inference came from her use of the term "burden of proof" which you implied meant a legal proceeding. This is why I showed you "burden of proof" wasn't just a legal term.
Apr 24, 2022·edited Apr 24, 2022Liked by Steven Jarvis
Just an observation but an old geezer like myself has noticed that @KassandraSeven posts more about Johnny Depp's trial than the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. This is remarkably odd for someone who styles herself as an "arbiter" on the information war.
You nailed this creatin. She's a fkn "poorly conceived deception" FROM BIRTH! What a waste of human space. Maybe they'll actually have a fkn come to their Jesus moment. Evil bastards. Just fkn evil. Good work, Steve. So sorry these fkers are still around. Soon enough. Hang in there.
If your group wasn't trying to kill people, pushing suicide ideation and other psychological attacks, I wouldn't have to be doing this now would I Susan?
Rachel, how do you know that there isn't a group participating in targeted online harassment? Is there a way for you to prove that such a group doesn't exist?
I had to ban "Rachel" for spam and manipulation, like conspirator0 does.
Even though Rachel's reply to me was removed, I can still see her comment in my email, so I will answer.
Rachel, I believe that the "burden of proof" is a legal term, and if there was legal action taken by one of the parties involved then ,yes, it would apply.
Hey there, you should check out this link. It will explain to you the concept of burden of proof, and why it isn't simply a legal term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
It seems as though you are accusing me of lying about....something. Not sure what.
I agree that the term "burden of proof" is not strictly used as a legal term. However Rachel's comment seemed to imply that she believed Steven was legally required (at this time) to "prove" his accusations about coordinated harrassment were true.
You get accused of being a liar often, don’t you Jackie?
No, actually I don't. The only people to accuse me of lying were the trolls who harassed me.
How about you, Rachel/Octopus/L'Orange?
Calm down. No one is accusing you of lying, I was simply showing you that "burden of proof" isn't only a legal term.
Just because you inferred Rachel's meaning doesn't mean she made the implication you think she did. Your inference came from her use of the term "burden of proof" which you implied meant a legal proceeding. This is why I showed you "burden of proof" wasn't just a legal term.
You sound very intelligent.
Were you GAEL yesterday, "Jared"?
Gael is still free to post, so he can do so If he wants.
Just an observation but an old geezer like myself has noticed that @KassandraSeven posts more about Johnny Depp's trial than the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. This is remarkably odd for someone who styles herself as an "arbiter" on the information war.
You nailed this creatin. She's a fkn "poorly conceived deception" FROM BIRTH! What a waste of human space. Maybe they'll actually have a fkn come to their Jesus moment. Evil bastards. Just fkn evil. Good work, Steve. So sorry these fkers are still around. Soon enough. Hang in there.
If your group wasn't trying to kill people, pushing suicide ideation and other psychological attacks, I wouldn't have to be doing this now would I Susan?
Rachel, how do you know that there isn't a group participating in targeted online harassment? Is there a way for you to prove that such a group doesn't exist?