Reply to post: The Bret thing

Supreme Court raises eyebrows at Google's cozy $8.5m legal deal

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

The Bret thing

What did he lie repeatedly about? I must have missed that? (I check BBC news frequently)

I'm also a bit wary of "credibly" - I don't think we'll ever know in this case, it was too long ago and has become political - I would have gone with "accused".

The first question is entirely serious, I don't remember anything about him caught in a lie and I check BBC news ... gotta be at least 3 times a day.

As for the second bit, that's nothing to do with this case, in general "credible" in a "he said she said" type thing is *VERY* difficult, and I really hate how polar things are these days this is not something I have a stance on (UK here, it's 3000-5000 miles away!)

The court of public opinion is getting silly now (again not this thing) with anger and counter-anger and counter-counter-anger ect ect ....

Lastly (to try and stave off those downvotes!) literally incredible means "not credible" - what would be incredible here? By being "not incredible" we get credible? Maybe I'm just wary after a crazy girl when I was in sixth form...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019