>>> "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> 10/11/99 12:01PM >>>no, charles, i did not ignore it. i read very carefully -- three times --
what you posted subsequently. nowhere did i see that it conflicted with
what i had said, and which you decided was a mischaracterisation. this is
what i wrote: "in post after post earlier this year, you insisted that the
war against Yugoslavia was being waged in order to grab resources and for
arms sales. which is why it took a number of posts from me ... in order to
get you even to gesture ever so superficially at the class struggle and
things like surplus value, and then promptly return to the resources
thing."
((((((((((((((((((
Charles: Then contrary to what you have said, the burden is on YOU to produce "post after post" in which I said what you said. You made this claim without producing the evidence to support it. You produced only one post, not post after post. And I showed where the one post you sent was not all of the post, and the rest of it supported what I have said in this dispute and contracted you. The burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion.
And by the way, I stand by the assertion that the war was to rationalize the military industrial complex spending, and to get more territory under the military control of NATO. I don't back off of those one inch. They don't contradict the labor power control aspect.
(((((((((((((((
Angela: that is, what will show me that i am wrong is: a) a post PRIOR to this discussion around the 11th of May where you had not, as i said above, "insisted that the war against Yugoslavia was being waged in order to grab resources and for arms sales"; b) referred in more than a superficial way to the class struggle and the labour power of yugoslav workers AFTER this discussion around May 11th; and c) where you had in fact DISCUSSED (and not simply gestured toward) the class struggles in Yugoslavia, and/or the ex-Yu, and/or even the war itself as part of the class struggle and a deterioration of the conditions of exploitation of yugoslav labour-power PRIOR to this discussion around May 11th.
(((((((((((((((
Charles: I don't have to prove anything to you. You made the claim. You prove your claim. Where are the posts after posts ?
And I don't have to do anything but "gesture toward" class struggles in Yugoslavia, because all I did was gesture toward the resources.
((((((((((((((((((
and no, you do not have to prove anything to me or anyone else about YOU. but, if you want to charge me with lying over and over again, then you will have to prove that i am instead of simply asserting that i am. and, just to be clear: i'm insisting that you prove the allegation because you made it several times and in the most emphatic of ways. you're a lawyer, you know how this works: you accuse me of lying and/or slander and you will have to tender evidence. you had the option of saying something simply like 'no, i don't think this', but you opted instead to yell 'liar' a number of times.
((((((((((((((
Charles: Exactly. I'm a lawyer, and I know how it works. The burden of proof lies with the one who made the initial complaint , the plaintiff. As defendant, I don't have to prove anything until you have produced some evidence supporting your claim. All I have to do is deny everything you said ( Call you a liar) . The burden of coming forth with some evidence and avoiding a move for a dismissal at the end of your presentation of your case is on the plaintiff. Dismissal here means I don't have to bring forth any evidence, and all I have to do is say you didn't produce any evidence. That's you in this case. My response is in the nature of a general denial. And if you don't come forth with any evidence to support your claim, then all I have to do is file for summary judgement for failure to make your case.
Charles