Quote from: alia on February 23, 2018, 03:18:34 PM

Quote from: nullius on February 23, 2018, 11:17:23 AM

Quote from: Viper1 on February 23, 2018, 08:47:44 AM

There is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion. This is just a smear campaign although I do suspect there may be some small truths to some of it.

It is a principle well-known to both expert liars and expert lie-detectors that a big bald-faced lie, said with a straight face, will always leave behind this poisonous residue.

Most people are a tiny bit corrupt, in some small way; they themselves can comprehend, sometimes even identify with the telling of small lies. Thus, they know that small lies happen. Whereas no ordinary person can really believe deep in his heart that somebody could tell a huge lie. The mind may know of such things, in the manner of book-learning; but emotions and conscience refuse to grasp the existence of such a monstrosity.

The understanding of big lies is a thing unto the opposing realms of philosophers, hardened criminals, and forensic psychologists.

Protip: If you want to really smear someone, tell a lie so bold that nobody can believe you just made it up. Repeat it over and again. Then repeat the whole process tomorrow, with a new lie. Quickseller explained in three sentences.

Quote from: Viper1 on February 23, 2018, 09:17:36 AM

When I look around I see people making claims, blatantly lying about things but as long as you have enough sheep believing you it becomes the "truth", at least for a certain portion of the population. I did say "smear campaign" did I not? i.e. "a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations". Don't need any proof when that's your plan.

Bingo.

Quote from: minifrij on February 23, 2018, 08:44:15 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on February 23, 2018, 08:23:56 AM

It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

No, not under the inquisitorial system. The accusatorial system has an accuser. The inquisitorial system has a _______.

Quote from: minifrij on February 23, 2018, 08:44:15 AM

You make a pretty shitty case if you can't provide such, and instead tell people to find it themselves.

In the quote of Quickseller to which you replied, he wasnt even telling people to find proof. He was telling people to start with what he alleges to be a randomized ~1 in 9 chance of an account upon whom to throw suspicion. This is followed by, ...and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest. Otherwise stated: it should not be difficult to find what you are looking for. Neat psych-out of idiots who will happily stare at the clouds until they see faces in them.

Quote from: Lauda on February 23, 2018, 08:56:21 AM

This is how you present proof. /thread

Hmmm... are you sure you're not Lauda? Huh

He is not. However he does have a vested interest in seeing that lauda maintains a positive reputation.

Instead of seeing that lauda acts with integrity, he tries to get others to overlook laudas unethical actions.