Vic

Although I do hate missing out on a good joke… Should I ask???

Wow, do you get it now? Please say you do, pleeeaaassssseeeee…. I know it makes it more exciting if someone’s actively trying to disprove your argument, but doesn’t mean that’s what’s going on everytime someone says anything in reply to your posts, seriously… Unfortunately I don’ care if what you said is true or not, I really don’t… wow, I think I’ve said that like 15 times already, or at least it feels like it…

Dammit, I need to just stick with the “forget about it” and just ignore any more comments… Probably be for the better… It’s worked before…

Anyway, again, you’re missing the point, as usual. I DON’T CARE about any of that, I’m MERELY pointing out that it was pretty pointless to try to use those two aspects to further your argument. I’m not going against your argument, because like I’ve already said several times in several different ways, I don’t really give a rat’s ass! How much simpler do I need to make it? Believe what you want, I really can care less if it’s true or not. I’m not being sarcastic, seriously, believe what you want, it can be true, it can be false, I really don’t care. But just for your own education, using someone’s claim in a court case is pointless because it means NOTHING, and the fact that someone would sue after getting terminated also means nothing, so no point wasting your time even bringing those things up. I’m trying to HELP you streamline your argument by cutting out the fat! That’s all I’m saying, didn’t think it would evoke an argument because both points are so surprisingly obvious I thought it was a “duh, thanks cpt obvious” moment but I guess not…

Ah, you know what, as usual, forget about it…

Until then don’t try to start arguments with me, you will loose everytime.

LOL,,,,

Or rather let’s forget about that stuff Ken, and continue to argue about Friedman’s “claim” and the fact that I have absolutely no proof if he’s telling the truth or not?
A factor that has “zero” to do with my overall point even if he’s involved…

Maybe he was, but his wife is lovely. Apparently Sir Keith had a hand in alerting the Australian command to the disastrous landing of the ANZACS at Gallipoli Cove in WW1.

Maybe I have a soft spot for him, as My Great Grandfather was evacuated from Gallipoli (Our apparent’birth’ of our nation). A whole generation of Australians were lost, and thank God my Grandad, who was in The 7th Lighthorse regiment, survived, or I would not be here.

I have Sir Keith to thank (in part) for that.
Rupert, however, is universally despised. And rightly so.

I just read about them in a magazine. Sir Keith died years ago. He was a reporter in WW1!

If you know them personally, try to get closer, maybe you may get a piece of the pie, lol.

And where does it say that someone has to be “down and out” to want to sue? It’s called $$$, not about any real damages done, he probably has plenty of money, just wants more. Don’t act surprised, everyone is out for greed. Murdoch, Friedman, they are all lying about what happened. I wouldn’t pick either side based on their “claim.” But that’s just me…

FOX/Murdoch have always pursued legal actions in the past to the fullest extent. Why havnt they denied these claims ??? Where’s the leak ???
We will soon see who wins this case Ken J. I look forward to the outcome,,,,,,,,,

Gottarhyme, nothing personal but, Rupperts father was a big D-bag. Do the research….

How a man with no scruples came from such well respected and wonderful parents, God only knows.

He sure sounds like one… but a rich dirt bag, lol.

Ooh, ad hominem and red herring all in one, I’m sort of impressed! Except I knew someone here who managed to squeeze those two AND strawman all into one sentence, damn that was some good stuff… Unfortunately those tricks only fool a very limited number of people, but as long as the image of the argument is more important than the content then I guess it’ll serve your purpose quite well, so bravo.

FYI, if you really were interested in a discussion of fact, try contesting what I’ve actually said. I criticized how you are accepting a CLAIM by this guy as “evidence” to use in your argument. When a CLAIM is exactly that, a claim. And also, you’re claiming that the mere fact that he’s sueing says something, when it’s a pretty common for someone who was terminated in a public fashion such as this from a major corporation that their first move is to sue them for wrongful termination since most corporations would rather settle out of court than to go to court even if their case is legitimate since it’s simply cheaper and less time-consuming that way, not to mention all of the negative publicity that will result. So I was stating that it’s pretty erroneous to use those factors to further your argument because they really don’t prove anything…

But it’s ok, if all you can do is throw personal attacks, that works out quite well for me, so no worries dude.