sexydoctor, you say that I am defensive, and you say that people refuse to accept the truth because the truth is inconvenient.
I am not at all defensive, what do I have to be defensive about? I am not the one who is making allegations. I am simply asking for clarification and confirmation before I accept your version of events as fact (which I think is reasonable on my part, given that you are an anonymous user of a website forum, whose identity and credibility is unknown to me).
I've asked you for confirmation of your allegations, and you haven't given me any, except to re-iterate and re-assert your own allegations, which amounts to 'hearsay'.
Again, I'm not saying that your allegations are absolutely and definitively untrue, I'm saying that your allegations are untrue *to the best of my knowledge and understanding and belief*, because you have made seemingly unfounded allegations, and not supported them with checkable facts such as the name of the person/victim, the date of broadcast and so on.
You're mistaken, I don't work for the London Al Jazeera bureau. I do, however, have a legal background, which might explain my pedantry when it comes to facts/details, and my unwillingness to accept your hearsay as fact.
I'm just interested in the truth (which can be demonstrably proven in the case of a broadcasting organisation), and you've yet to prove your allegations.
Again, I will be very happy to stand corrected if you can verify and provide confirmation of your allegations.
BTW, again, I'd recommend you watch the documentary Control Room. The very premise of your initial posting is that Al Jazeera courts controversy. If you were to watch the documentary you might have a different view of the motivations of Al Jazeera journalists.
sexydoctor, you say that I am defensive, and you say that people refuse to accept the truth because the truth is inconvenient.
I am not at all defensive, what do I have to be defensive about? I am not the one who is making allegations. I am simply asking for clarification and confirmation before I accept your version of events as fact (which I think is reasonable on my part, given that you are an anonymous user of a website forum, whose identity and credibility is unknown to me).
I've asked you for confirmation of your allegations, and you haven't given me any, except to re-iterate and re-assert your own allegations, which amounts to 'hearsay'.
Again, I'm not saying that your allegations are absolutely and definitively untrue, I'm saying that your allegations are untrue *to the best of my knowledge and understanding and belief*, because you have made seemingly unfounded allegations, and not supported them with checkable facts such as the name of the person/victim, the date of broadcast and so on.
You're mistaken, I don't work for the London Al Jazeera bureau. I do, however, have a legal background, which might explain my pedantry when it comes to facts/details, and my unwillingness to accept your hearsay as fact.
I'm just interested in the truth (which can be demonstrably proven in the case of a broadcasting organisation), and you've yet to prove your allegations.
Again, I will be very happy to stand corrected if you can verify and provide confirmation of your allegations.
BTW, again, I'd recommend you watch the documentary Control Room. The very premise of your initial posting is that Al Jazeera courts controversy. If you were to watch the documentary you might have a different view of the motivations of Al Jazeera journalists.