Give a bit of background as to why I'm asking for info. I won't be mincing words there, it really is grounds for defamation if Evspra's allegations all turns out to be false. And I will write however I see it.
Well, it turns out that the email was for naught anyway.
Anyone who's open to the possibility that it could be false. No, I did not say it was false, I said that it could turn out to be false. For all I know Evspra could be spot on the money. But I am not as convinced that it's true and confirmed as you or Evspra.
And that's why I reached out to DVIDS in the first place.
But to flail around declaring the actions of the few people most clearly uncovering the evident truth as potentially “defamatory” is utterly bizarre and unjustifiable.
Give a bit of background as to why I'm asking for info. I won't be mincing words there, it really is grounds for defamation if Evspra's allegations all turns out to be false. And I will write however I see it.
Well, it turns out that the email was for naught anyway.
Who in their right, decent mind is claiming them to be “false”?
Anyone who's open to the possibility that it could be false. No, I did not say it was false, I said that it could turn out to be false. For all I know Evspra could be spot on the money. But I am not as convinced that it's true and confirmed as you or Evspra.
And that's why I reached out to DVIDS in the first place.
Anything could turn out to be false.
But to flail around declaring the actions of the few people most clearly uncovering the evident truth as potentially “defamatory” is utterly bizarre and unjustifiable.
I agree that I should've worded it differently, but what's sent is sent.
What the hell Evspra, why are you breaking your own forum rules?