It was pretty obvious that the thing stated about the car(s) in question was pure opinion, regardless of threats. And what pisses me off, is that neither of you realised that other people are allowed to have an opinion on any matter, without having to find some middle ground, and without making a joint press release sort of thing.
Well, damn me. Three years for a law degree, a further three for a PhD, A year's pupillage and then numerous years practice and I never realised! Hey Ho!
Wow, I'm absolutely stunned you would try taking your argument in that direction,
and simultenously make an argument from authority, but perhaps you don't know what an opinion is, and what free expression of an opinion is and why , say, a journalist doing a commentary has a much wider berth than the same person doing a straight news article. Hell, I'm even allowed to call someone a motherf.. if the intent was clearly to insult, and not to insinuate the person was actually in an incestual relationship with his mother.
Yes, I'm allowed to say that I think the bloody queen is an inbred idiot and that the UK would be better off without another inbred following her. It is obviously an opinion (which I actually don't hold, but it is an example), and she would lose the battle in a court.
But since you tried to pull off an argument from authority, please do let us know which branch of law you worked with. Property law or perhaps Intellectual property? I'm quite certain it is not anything even remotely related to this.
