I mean you say I'm legally illiterate and you pull this nonsense? What's next the belief you can go to jail for being nasty to people........ oh wait that really is what some people very much would like, at least for people they don't agree with.
Actually, in the US, criminal defamation exists on the books in almost all states.
...But
you were the one claiming that the random online criticisms were libellous. I was the one saying that it's completely inapplicable. So yeah, if you want to start talking about how ridiculous it is to say that "you can go to jail for being nasty"... then please feel free, because it's your own argument you're undermining.
Actually it is a claim being presented in an objective manner even if the claim is subjective and not based in reality the presentation of it is objective often because that's seen as more persuasive. E.G. "You're problematic" tends to get a response or action or looking into it while "I'm offended" tends to get a response of "Well so fucking what?"
And neither are claims of an objective nature.
Well I presented options. You said none of the options were right. So yes the burden on proof would now be on you to state why your 3rd option is the correct one not either of the options I presented.
Hah! Nice try, but no, if you make a specific and explicit claim that someone said something (condoned abuse and death threats), then the burden of proof doesn't shift onto me (an unrelated third party?!) to prove that they didn't do that. What a tortuous line of reasoning.
Also yes said context of them refusing to lay out their position can be taken in context as them being unwilling to state a position because their true position would be bad PR wise to admit to.
...You assume. But you haven't provided a shred of fucking proof for what you claimed their position was.
You made a claim, you can't back it up, and now to justify it you're moaning about stuff they
didn't say.