Driver blamed for Total CEO Christophe de Margerie crash claims he is being framed.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Thanks for the answer, although my post was not directed at you. Seriously, I wouldn't have posted otherwise.

Glad you saw the ? and understood the wording, but what I cant fathom is what you are trying to say.

In one sentence i am 'silly' for my comment, then in the same sentence you are saying 'you will see a lot worse...', the latter resonates as an agreement. So it's OK to have light to mild intolerance/libel/defamation is it? What about (lets call it) serial sniping ? You only have to read the following posts to see the trend.

Again, thanks for your unrequested edification regarding conspiracy sites. But why? I think you may have missed the point of my statement. (or is that the intelligent discernment coming into play?)

You allude that you have a handle on what is a conspiracy and what is not, so maybe you could help me by sharing a few litres of that 'intelligent discernment' . Actually ...Thanks but no thanks. Read my credo. ( A Hint: It is all lies )

And whats with the russia hint? Can you point out where I have even mentioned russia? It is a funny statement though, so thanks for the laughs.

FYI..

libel (ˈlaɪbəl) n 1. (Law) law a. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc b. the act of publishing such matter 2. any defamatory or unflattering representation or statement

defame (dɪˈfeɪm) vb (tr) 1. (Law) to attack the good name or reputation of; slander; libel 2. (Law) to indict or accuse

in·tol·er·ant (n-tlr-nt) adj. Not tolerant, especially: a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs. b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

So seriously... 3 out of 3

critical thinking ?

OK - can the people who think this is a conspiracy please apply some ???????????????????????

the facts [ undisputed ] are that a Russian airport snowplough was in collision with a French biz jet on the runway of a Russian airport

if you want to claim a conspiracy then there are 3 major possibilities

1 - the snowplough deliberately rammed the biz jet

2 - the bizjet deliberately rammed the snowplough

3 - Russian airport control put both vehicles on a collision course

all 3 require means , motive[ or manipulation ] and opportunity

and further require inaction or incorrect action on the part of the other two actors

go ahead explain how " they " did it

edit - redefined Russian ATC to the more correct Russian airport control

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
but what I cant fathom is what you are trying to say.

Since you quoted a comment and implied that it did not fall within the terms and conditions, I was "trying to say" that this implication was an exaggeration, an hyberbole.Not sensible.

In one sentence i am 'silly' for my comment, then in the same sentence you are saying 'you will see a lot worse...',

Yes, you will see criticism much stronger than the one quoted which does not get condemned by ATS as "contrary to terms and conditions". In other words, neither they nor the one quoted are regarded as "libellous, defamatory, bigoted, intolerant", mainly because they are not.
I'm not calling them "mildly libellous and defamatory". I'm calling them "not defamatory at all".
Not only sensible people, but even lawyers, would fail to see any match between the definitions you quote and the comment you quoted originally.

And whats with the russia hint? Can you point out where I have even mentioned russia?

You were backing up an earlier poster who was being criticised for looking outside Russia for his conspiracy.
My comment was backing up the person who criticised him.

And for YOUR information, there is no etiquette on this site to the effect that responses to posts should come ONLY from the person being addressed by them, or only when invited. So your sarcasms on that point are water off a duck's back.

de Margerie was assasscianated.

He could not be allowed to continue sabotaging the petro dollar.

a reply to: DISRAELI
OK,

I was "trying to say" that this implication was an exaggeration, an hyberbole.Not sensible.

Or maybe you have a lower expectation of standards. I just asked the question, maybe even satirically. Not my job to persuade or police, nor yours, just the moderators (as far as ATS goes), or the legal system (globally)
Originally you said

the mild comment quoted

You now say

"not defamatory at all"

So what is it? mild? not at all? Tomorrow, will it be 'serious' if it suits the purpose of your posting?

If you have a high paid lawyer, and/or enough connection, then just about anything could be deemed defamation or libel. (did enjoy the snipe though)

Now..

You were backing up an earlier poster who was being criticised for looking outside Russia for his conspiracy

I stated...

Try reading his first line. Although more a hypothesis than theory.

Where is this 'backing up' in those 11 words? Where is any mention of Russia?

Also, Thanks for the information but where did I say ?...

that responses to posts should come ONLY from the person being addressed by them, or only when invited

I said

Thanks for the answer, although my post was not directed at you.

So, I acknowledge your comment and go as far as THANKING you for it, and reminded you that my question was directed at Occam. I am conversing with you now, am I not? Am I ignoring or shunning you? NO Where do I say I will ONLY converse with the addressee...So really what are u on about?

So to use the 'acceptable' vernacular of others....' maybe this makes no sense to you, but you use your ' intelligent discernment' to read into anything what you already believe'

Quack quack

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.