3 ms·
On the other hand, these words are widely understood to mean "he lied" and judges (or juries) aren't stupid. Going for this kind of strong wording and then tryi
by Sebb767 3y ago
On the other hand, these words are widely understood to mean "he lied" and judges (or juries) aren't stupid. Going for this kind of strong wording and then trying to weasel out by a minor technicality seems like a risky strategy, especially against someone having sufficient money to fight this until the bitter end.
- 15457345234 3y agoAin't a risky strategy if it's a true statement.
- layer8 3y agoI hope we live in a world where judges don’t consider this to be "strong wording".
- Sebb767 3y agoI hope we do. If these words would be on your recommendation letter or said by one of your job references, basically any HR person would understand it as "this employee was caught severely lying" and see it as a big warning not to hire you under any circumstances. I agree that in a casual context, this would be mild, but we're talking about professional press releases and judges acting oblivious to this context is not a good thing in my book.
- 15457345234 3y agoThe strength of the wording is irrelevant if the statement is accurate.
- mcpackieh 3y agoCommon people generally don't get the "spend more time with family" treatment when they get fired. Therefore rich people shouldn't be entitled to it.
- lazide 3y ago'rich people' don't get it because they're vaguely entitled to it. they get it because the other party is afraid of the consequences if they don't get it.