> And that sounds like something someone with no concept of libel would say. Pshaw. 1) OP is the one flirting with libel. 2) I responded to that with satire.

> And that sounds like something someone with no concept of libel would say. Pshaw. 1) OP is the one flirting with libel. 2) I responded to that with satire. 3) OP asked me to explain the satire. 4) I explained the satire, and actually did it with generalizations and no specific accusation. And you think step 4 is going to get me nailed for libel? Can you cite any legal precedent? In the United States, satire goes a long, long way. We like our free speech quite a bit. For instance, here's a Microsoft ad claiming that if you buy a Google Chromebook, you'll get something worth $0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjQhYBKInwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjQhYBKInwo A little satire goes a long way. But I'll let you know if Microsoft lawyers come knocking. Or maybe I should just go ahead and make a baseless Hacker News allegation with no evidence at all, using an anonymous account, asserting that Microsoft is going after people for libel for posting satire? And that they want $125,000 in settlement?