Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
You say it was my choice to omit something, are you incapable of assuming that I may have thought the other part less important or are you lying about my motives on purpose?



Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?

If you do care about what I have to say after all, I am not sure what you are referring to regarding knowingly false information. If it is about some holocaust denial, I think that material was already deleted. In many topics it is hard to make a judgement about what is knowingly false as both sides will claim what the other says is knowingly false. The moderation can not always step in and suppress what it thinks is knowingly false. I'm pretty sure that the rule is more about lying about something or someone than about suppressing someone's political opinion that they actually believe in (thus don't know that it could be false
Well that's simple.
If someone makes a claim about the content of a video then the video is irrefutable proof of its contents.
If the video does not contain what people claim it contains then the claims are false.
When challenged on the actual content you get further denials(excuse the pun) in response and insults.
Now if someone claims something isn't in a video when it is, and claims that they have watched the video then something doesn't ring true.
If that person then says that the lengthy interview is only 10minutes long it proves that they have neither watched the video or are aware of its contents.
Therefore everything that person has written on the subject is completely false and they have knowingly chosen to simply lie throughout the entire exchange