It's amazing that you need it explained to you, but I'll try.

We're not hypocrites here, we're critics. No one here claims to have any kind of secret info, no one says they overheard conversations, no one claims to be "in the know," no one claims to have contacts in city hall, the administration, local political parties, etc. Everything we say here is clearly the OPINION of the person who posts it.

For example: "I think Janet Evans is an a$$hole" is very different from saying "I have proof that she is." Proving that Janet is an a$$hole (or you for that matter) would be a difficult challenge in any court of law. You'd have to define "a$$hole," provide documented evidence of her performing the defining acts, etc. No, we're happy here just having the opinion that she, you, Joe, etc. are a$$holes. The only proof offered to the point that we may be correct is by you guys when you post your childish rants and conspiracy theories. Still, it probably wouldn't hold up in court. A judge would probably say, "Jimmy, I think you're an a$$hole, but the definition of the term is so loose that it will be difficult to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. Try as you might sir, I may think you're an a$$hole, but I can not convict of being one."

At dd.com the word "opinion" is lost. You all claim to have proof that people are crooks, a$$holes, etc. You all (especially Joe) seem to forget that all you offer is opinion. If any of you had or presented any actual proof Joe wouldn't be 1 for 28 in court, and you would be bragging about how you put the mayor behind bars.

I tried to use as few big words as possible. Do you understand the difference now?

Please don't try to prove that you're not an a$$hole. Chances are you'll just help define the term.

-- Edited by Art Gordon at 11:26, 2007-06-08