Antennae would be very fashionable in Milan this time of the year :). Was your point that 'defamation' has a strict meaning in law and that I was wrong in sugg

Antennae would be very fashionable in Milan this time of the year :). Was your point that 'defamation' has a strict meaning in law and that I was wrong in suggesting that these deniers are guilty of defamation in that strict sense? In that case, that is probably true, I'll trust you on that. My previous comment was intended to explain that I did not mean it in such a strict sense. My argument was not that it is wrong because it is that exact offense that is punishable by law. The fact that we have laws covering parts of that behaviour merely illustrates that we consider it wrong. But that only parts of the behaviour are covered does not mean that the other parts are not considered wrong. Some behaviour is not outlawed because it is not feasible to formulate proper laws to cover the behaviour: even in countries where holocaust denial is forbidden, most cases of holocaust denial cannot possibly be prosecuted. As an aside, in my book, a 'liar' does not necessarily have malicious intent. He may just be ignorant: morons and liars are not mutually exclusive. Finally, seeing what demagogues have been capable of: yes, the power of words is scary. Fear is a bad counsellor, but still a warning to be heeded after the fear has passed over you and through you.