>Patrick Ross = “So I’m going to tell you right now: keep pushing that. I absolutely will use any and all legal means to make sure that kind of nonsense comes to a stop.
Don’t believe me? Keep pushing.”
– – –
You are obviously very distant from an understanding of libel and slander lawsuits. So am I. But obviously, lulu’s reply was meant to use such a statement in order to illuminate the egregiousnous of your assumption of agreement and then ‘running with it’ if someone doesn’t respond in the negative to your original query. It was not an assertation of your character, it was only meant to illuminate the stupidity of your original assumption. That you construe her conjecture as libellious or slanderous further illustrates your misunderstanding of the principle involved.
It is obvious to a 5 year old that not saying ‘no’ does not therefore mean ‘yes’. It is even more obtuse to expect someone to respond immediately on the internet because they might not even be aware or your original question. They may be busy elsewhere, etc.
Furthermore, just because you ask someone something does not automatically entail you to a responce. Do you think you are worthy of such respect and/or defference in other’s eyes? Talk about haughty and childish narcisism.
Nevertheless, the argument that if you don’t respond to an untrue statement/question about yourself means that you can ‘run with it with the assumption of agreement’ is what could set YOU up for slander if you want to insist on couching things in that light because it is YOU that is stunned enough to do such a thing as misconstrue an obvious situation, or act like you do.
If it is an act, that act then illuminates your malicious and childish nature to purposely misunterstand the other persons position in order to further your agenda.
Me, I just think you are childish and stupid – obviously so.