NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/men/22042

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 1.6 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:22042 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11308 soc.women:22061 talk.abortion:53935
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!torn!newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca!bouche2
From: [e-mail] (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jan 1993 13:38:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:

>| Yep, and those false accusations ought to be a Class "X" (as in just as bad
>| as selling cocaine to a 5-year old) felony.
>
>Lying under oath if proven is called perjury and is a
>felony.  News to you guys?

Just try and PROVE that an allegation of sexual abuse is false.  I have talked
to several experts in the field who have told me that there is nothing that
would even be considered to be EVIDENCE that sexual abuse did not occur.

Yes, you read that right.  There is no fact whatsoever that could be cited
that would be considered to be evidence against an allegation of sexual
abuse, for the experts have an alternative explanation that would still
allow the possibility of abuse.  Thus an accusation of abuse is unfalsifiable,
even though in rare cases the courts might not believe it.

-db