The article states that D’Souza and his lawyers are citing Costco as well as google
You are saying that they don’t have a case against google, yet his lawyers have filed the case against google
It is now in the hands of the courts, not like witnessing an accident, where I could be called as a witness
If the court calls you as a witness, due to your after the fact experience on google, after they allegedly fixed the search, and the court finds D’Souza to then be erroneous, at that point we’ll be able to factually say it was bogus, IF, that’s the finding
Until then, the google claim is in the court system. D’Souza’s lawyers say they have a case.
Call them if you have an argument. I’ll wait for the courts to figure it out
“You are saying that they don’t have a case against google, yet his lawyers have filed the case against google
It is now in the hands of the courts, not like witnessing an accident, where I could be called as a witness”
You’ve missed my point. I know the claim is bogus. I have no need to wait for the courts in order to know the claim is bogus. I don’t need a court to tell me the sky is blue either.
“If the court calls you as a witness, due to your after the fact experience on google, after they allegedly fixed the search, and the court finds D’Souza to then be erroneous, at that point we’ll be able to factually say it was bogus, IF, that’s the finding”
It wasn’t “after the fact”, after google applied their fix, it was both before the fix was applied, and after the fix that we tested the claim. Secondly, there is no “we” here. I already know what the truth is. If you want to wait for the courts to tell you what the truth is, that is your problem, not mine, and not ours.
Why are you trying to get Boogieman to argue sotto voce with D’Souza’s lawyers?
Boogieman is declaiming the Google part of the allegation due to his investigation of the situation. You are supporting the claim based on the evidence of D’Souza’s lawyers’ actions (which, BTW, is not in and of itself evidence).
You have presented no evidence of Google altering their search algorithms over the issue. You haven’t even summarized the evidence allegedly produced by D’Souza’s lawyers, at least as far as I have seen. Yet you tell Boogieman he has to counter vague, unspecified evidence in order to make his claim that the issue is junk.
Essentially, you are saying the fact that an allegation has been made is the same as showing how the allegation is true, or at least how it COULD be true. By that logic, our very own Buckhead shouldn’t have immediately debunked Dan Rather’s national guard memos about President Bush based on his own expertise and experience.
I’m genuinely confused by your choice of argument on this subject - you demand all evidence while presenting none.