| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Nothing wrong with advancing multiple opinionsNothing wrong with advancing multiple opinionsPosted Dec 28, 2003 21:36 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: That thing called "lying"... by rankincj Parent article: More SCO cheer We're not even talking about lying here. We're talking about things which are clearly matters of opinion. Not only is it OK for a plaintiff to express conflicting opinions in public, it's OK to do it in court, and a court can even find that both conflicting opinions are valid, in separate contexts. Consider the following legal argument, from an ancient legal argument textbook. A person is accused of borrowing a kettle and cracking it, and thus owing the owner a new kettle. "Your honor, Defendant argues that 1) he never had the kettle; 2) the kettle is not cracked; and 3) it was cracked when he got it." If you sufficiently broaden your mind to what the facts of this case might be, the above argument is perfectly sane. And the facts of the SCO case are far less concrete.
(Log in to post comments)
Nothing wrong with advancing multiple opinions Posted Dec 29, 2003 1:13 UTC (Mon) by rankincj (subscriber, #4865) [Link] Perhaps, but this does remind me of a passage in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" where Man proves that Black is White, only to get run over on the next zebra crossing...SCO has totally failed to produce any substantive evidence after 9 months, and their press releases to date have exhibited both an 'economy with the truth' and a lack of candour. But hey, if you want to believe them then don't let me stop you.
|
|||||||||||