(12-19-2025, 07:20 AM)Roma Wrote: Do you know what I find odd?  That here, on a conspiracy site, there are people who don't believe the BBC is a mouthpiece for the deep state.     

The BBC obviously purposely manipulated the video in order to make it look like Trump said something that he didn't.   They had purpose and agenda.   Common sense.   And the people over there don't care that they were lied to and manipulated because they did it against Trump whom they hate.    

You can hate Trump AND hate what the BBC did at the same time.   But they don't.   I find it strange.

(12-18-2025, 08:54 PM)Knows Wrote: Not only did Trump suffer defamation but many harmless people spent years in jail. Those in the BBC that put out  fake information should go to prison also. They committed an actual crime. 

Jan. 6 sentences are piling up. Here's a look at some of the longest handed down.

So, the BBC was responsible for the conviction of Jan 6th rioters?

I see...

What crime might the BBC have committed?

(I'm just denying ignorance here).

(12-19-2025, 07:39 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: I didn't say I found Geography odd.   
You know that.
I said I find that all your reactions are odd.
Reactions to being lied to and manipulated.
Your hate for Trump outweighs your hate of the press lying to you.
That's what I said that I find odd.   

And once again ... I said my statement is based on common sense
and that doesn't go far in a court of law but that doesn't matter.
Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that the BBC did what
they did with purpose and intent.   It wasnt' an 'error'.

Trumps lawsuit is outrageous and won't get far.  
But what the BBC purposely did was outrageous as well.
And you guys simply don't care about what they did to you.

I find lots of things "odd" it doesn't mean they are illegal.

And once again, your argument assumes intent without evidence.

"Common sense" is not a reliable detector of motive, as i have said, it usually reflects prior beliefs, not actual proof.

Newsrooms make errors through time pressure, sourcing mistakes, and editorial bias without requiring coordinated manipulation.

And claiming purpose and intent demands evidence and testimony, not intuition.

Disliking Trump does not equal indifference to media failures.

People can judge his lawsuit as legally absurd and still criticize journalism.

Just like you suggest, two things can be true at the same time.

Additonally the "you don’t care" nonsense is mind-reading, not an argument.

You can't replace evidence with emotional inference.

Or you can, but i doubt it would hold up in a court of law. 

(12-19-2025, 07:41 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: I'm not a 'Trump minion'.
And I say the same thing as Trump.
It's obvious the BBC manipulated and lied with agenda.
Common sense.    It was no 'error'.
He may suck beyond all sucking ... but he's correct on this.
His $$$ lawsuit isn't.  But his statement about the BBC is.

Obvious to a court of law?  

Then he won't have any problem proving so.

Let's see how that goes down. 

(12-19-2025, 09:35 AM)andy06shake Wrote: I find lots of things "odd" it doesn't mean they are illegal.

I don't know what you are talking about.
I said that the lack of caring about the BBC lying and manipulating you is odd.
I don't get your laid back attitude about it.
I didn't say your attitude was illegal.

Something isn't getting communicated properly.
First you think I said that geography is odd ... when I didn't.
Now you think I said that your laid back attitude is illegal?  

Either I'm not saying things clearly or you aren't reading clearly ... or both.

(12-19-2025, 09:37 AM)andy06shake Wrote: Obvious to a court of law?  

I already said not in court.
I said obvious to those with common sense.
To try to claim they just made a mistake is ridiculous.
They manipulated and falsely edited on purpose.
It's obvious.

(12-19-2025, 09:39 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: I don't know what you are talking about.
I said that the lack of caring about the BBC lying and manipulating you is odd.
I don't get your laid back attitude about it.
I didn't say your attitude was illegal.

Something isn't getting communicated properly.
First you think I said that geography is odd ... when I didn't.
Now you think I said that your laid back attitude is illegal?  

Either I'm not saying things clearly or you aren't reading clearly ... or both.

No, what's happening is pretty clear.

And i don't think it's my reading skills that are in question.

We disagree on what constitutes actual evidence.

And you seem to think this is about common sense.

Let the courts decide, problem solved.

But we both know Trump can never allow this to go that far.

Hence the reason he is after a payout.

And most likely a settlement out of court. 

No real mystery i can see. 

Just Trump doing what he does best and trying to shift the spotlight from the incoming Epstein information. 

(12-19-2025, 09:41 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: I already said not in court.
I said obvious to those with common sense.
To try to claim they just made a mistake is ridiculous.
They manipulated and falsely edited on purpose.
It's obvious.

Obvious to you, again, your courts of law, i suggest not so much.

And that "manipulation" does not constitute what you think.

Else im sure Trump will be able to prove so. 

Deferamation is a high bar and never easily proved.

Which is ​​​​​​precisely why people casually invoking defamation sound unserious.

(12-19-2025, 09:46 AM)andy06shake Wrote: And i don't think it's my reading skills that are in question.

Dunno' .... twice you've said that I said something that I didn't.
I listed them.
And my reading skills and typing skills are not in question either.
So we are at a stalemate.   
Something isn't being communicated correctly.


Trump sucks.
BBC did what it did on purpose and with intent.
I'm done.
I've said what I've had to say.   /out

(12-19-2025, 09:57 AM)FlyersFan Wrote: Dunno' .... twice you've said that I said something that I didn't.
I listed them.
And my reading skills and typing skills are not in question either.
So we are at a stalemate.   
Something isn't being communicated correctly.


Trump sucks.
BBC did what it did on purpose and with intent.
I'm done.
I've said what I've had to say.   /out

We seem to understand one another just fine if you ask me.

Trump sucks indeed, we certainly agree on that score. 

None of which changes his chances of proving defamation.

In an actual court of law, or having the BBC, pay him $10 billion in damages.

Again its just a misdistraction from what's about to land on the doorstep.