General Discussion

Last edited Sun Sep 9, 2012, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

are beaming such information to your dental fillings) that Borgstrom is involved on his own initiative and only to raise his own profile, or that the two women involved were paid by the Swedish state to make the accusations, or that the UK has abandoned its ancient custom of judicial oversight in this case, then (of course) none of the rest of us can dispute your private revelation, and you are therefore allowed to hold such a view yourself -- but common standards of public discourse also require you to provide public evidence (rather than your private revelation), if you want to convince other people of the rightness of your views