~>>  Then I did not accuse him.

 EC>> You continue to be stuck on stupid.  If I were to say that you
 EC>> unlawfully took the life of someone in an intentional and premeditated
 EC>> manner, I would be accusing you of murder.  You might be the only
 EC>> person in the English-speaking world who would accept "I
didn't use the
 EC>> WORD" as a fitting response.

 JH> This is Bob-logic in it's very essence.  Bob-logic would

 If your brain was functioning you would understand that if I
 didn't use the word, you have to show that the words I did use
 amount to the same thing. Since they did not, as per the
 definition from Black's Law Dictionary, then there was no such
 accusation.

 He made a specific accusation, regarding a *LEGAL* matter, and
 his accusation was false. He apperently can't even read the law
 and understand it.

 ...

 JH> We see this very same faulty (in-fact dishonest) Bob-logic
 JH> in action every time he asserts that Clinton never admitted
 JH> to lying or committing perjury in his testimony in the
 JH> Paula Jones case - - "Clinton never used either of those
 JH> words," - - so that proves he never did it.

 The fact is, Clinton did *NOT* admit to lying or committing
 perjury. He did admit to framing his testimony in such a way as
 to give as little for the plaintiff as possible, but that's
 legal. In court the testimony can only be taken as spoken, not
 reinterpreted to fit the wishes of the right wing hate mongers.

 He admitted to doing something unacceptable, but never illegal.

 And your strawmen do not change any of that.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a