Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01
I think people are looking for explanations why he likes to argue things he clearly has no knowledge of. Lawyers can win arguments where they are totally wrong and have no logical basis in fact because they argue it the right way and get a couple people to agree. It often feels like that's what dilanesp does here. He gets proven wrong and then goes on for 50 more posts figuring he'll wear you down like in a court of law and get a hung jury.
|
Here's the thing. There's one person here with personal knowledge of what happened. And he won't tell us any real facts (nor can he- I'm not blaming him for THAT; his job is more important than anything he posts here).
But what he does is use the fact that he can't tell us the real facts to BS us here. To say "I KNOW the real facts, but I just can't say them, and of course, the real facts are [insert completely implausible, obviously false thing here]."
All I am doing is what anyone on a jury would do- call BS. We have ENOUGH facts in the public record, plus what people with knowledge of the situation have told me, that I can say with 100% certainty that TLG is posting false claims to defend his friend, who is a very nice man and a career NYRA employee but a substandard racecaller who was installed as part of a cost-cutting maneuver.
Again, we can get this from public facts.
What you are doing, castaway, is presuming that anyone who draws inferences from publicly available facts "has no knowledge of the facts". But drawing inferences is how we convict people of murder and send people to prison in this country. It's not some horrible thing. Indeed, "the person who actually knows the facts isn't telling the truth" is basically one of the oldest story in human society- it isn't STRANGE in any way that TLG is doing this.
