Fox News settles with Dominion, agrees to pay $787.5 million

[temporal1]

Maybe there’s another factor.

Do i respect/accept court rulings? Yes.
Do i respect/accept appeals? Yes. (i now EXPECT appeals)
Do i respect/accept settlements? Yes.

These things prevent anarchy.

Do i believe truth/Truth Is found? Definitely not sure. Not in earthly courts.
With settlements, no way to know.

Secular law schools are about WINNING. $$$$ Morality is .. not hardly considered.
(They found it too difficult, so it’s not attempted.)

[Ken]

Maybe there’s another factor.

Do i respect/accept court rulings? Yes.
Do i respect/accept appeals? Yes. (i now EXPECT appeals)
Do i respect/accept settlements? Yes.

There was no verdict so there is nothing to appeal. Fox agreed to the settlement so it is over. They can't appeal the terms of a settlement that they, themselves, entered into willingly.

[Bootstrap]

Maybe there’s another factor.

Do i respect/accept court rulings? Yes.
Do i respect/accept appeals? Yes. (i now EXPECT appeals)
Do i respect/accept settlements? Yes.

These things prevent anarchy.

I agree.

Do i believe truth/Truth Is found? Definitely not sure. Not in earthly courts.

I would definitely agree that some rulings are false.

In this case, I thought the evidence that was presented was staggering and astonishing, though. You could look at conversations between Fox employees, who knew the truth, then go look at their broadcasts the same day. You could read their reasoning, talking about how they would lose viewers if they told the truth.

That evidence came directly from Fox. They were forced to provide it.

[Josh]

Where do you get such ridiculous nonsense? Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about things?

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about things?

[Ken]

Where do you get such ridiculous nonsense? Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about things?

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about things?

I willingly admit when I am wrong. In this case you asserted that "anyone who criticizes the election process gets sued for 3/4 billion dollars."

Which is a patently ridiculous and obviously wrong thing to state.

[temporal1]

Maybe there’s another factor.

Do i respect/accept court rulings? Yes.
Do i respect/accept appeals? Yes. (i now EXPECT appeals)
Do i respect/accept settlements? Yes.

These things prevent anarchy.

I agree.

Do i believe truth/Truth Is found? Definitely not sure. Not in earthly courts.

I would definitely agree that some rulings are false.

In this case, I thought the evidence that was presented was staggering and astonishing, though. You could look at conversations between Fox employees, who knew the truth, then go look at their broadcasts the same day. You could read their reasoning, talking about how they would lose viewers if they told the truth.

That evidence came directly from Fox. They were forced to provide it.

This seems to be a thoughtful Peanut Gallery judgment/ruling, conclusion, it’s not from a judge/jury.
You are free to have your opinions.

i would abstain, having witnessed so many rulings overturned on appeal.
Today, no actual ruling seems to be beyond appeal. To the point that rulings seem to be more often STARTING places than ending places.

Settlements sidestep all that. Except for the Peanut Gallery.

This is a loss for the public as we don't get the public testimony supporting Dominion's claims.

Kinda. The loss is from both sides.

[Bootstrap]

Where do you get such ridiculous nonsense? Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about things?

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about things?

Why so many words? Wouldn't this be easier?

Ken: Is not.
Josh: Is too.

I think that's the content of those two posts. Maybe we should focus more on facts? I don't care who is right, but facts can help us figure out what is true.

[Szdfan]

i would abstain, having witnessed so many rulings overturned on appeal.
Today, no actual ruling seems to be beyond appeal. To the point that rulings seem to be more often STARTING places than ending places.

Settlements sidestep all that. Except for the Peanut Gallery.

Do you think it's possible that all your commentary about how nothing can be trusted is also a Peanut Gallery? To me it seems that you're not interested in discussing the issue -- just repeating over and over that nothing can be trusted as true. I'm a bit confused about why you are posting so much about a topic you don't think it's possible to discern any truth about it.

[Josh]

t1 hasn’t said nothing can be trusted.

She’s said that unreliable courts with unscrupulous attorneys and big $$$ can’t be trusted.

[temporal1]

t1 hasn’t said nothing can be trusted.
She’s said that unreliable courts with unscrupulous attorneys and big $$$ can’t be trusted.

That’s what i was shooting for.
But my writing skills aren’t very good, so i never presume what i’ve written is what i intended. i judge that a lot by response. Then try to make adjustments. Writing is hard, so is reading. Many don’t even try.

i’m definitely part of The Peanut Gallery, and did not intend to suggest otherwise. Ever.
That’s an old phrase, it predates Mr Jim, and Charles M Schultz, but Mr Jim was the first one i noticed using it on forum.



My interest here is about what settlements are and are not. They often leave more questions than answers.
Then, too, many don’t want to accept verdicts after full deliberation. Appeals are expected, in some cases required!
Our legal system is wonky, at best. Rarely does any verdict satisfy everyone.