The point is not that “no news is not good news”. The point is that the idea, which is false, propagates throughout the chat boards and people believe they have rights they do not have.
Sorry dude. When it comes up and someone spreads misinformation on it, because it is one of those viral falsehoods, I’ll probably take a moment to explain why it’s not actually the law.
Why would anyone want to prop up something the know to be likely, for other reasons, with a falsehood? It undermines the truth to do so and the reliability of the source. That some people have so much pride invested in a false idea, I can only explain by what we see in debates generally these days. People seem to have a need to “take a side” irrespective of truth or reality because RE prefer a given idea or perspective. This is one of those situations unfortunately. I chose to take a strong position because someone who held himself out as a lawyer, but an EU lawyer in truth, told people this was a truth and I felt it was important to be sure people knew that that was not an axiom of truth, upon which they could rely... to calculate the safety of their investments...generally. There are other reliable measures. You point to them... why not just say the facts upon which you really rely than to spread i truth to falsely induce reliance on persons who want to believe but want an legal like axiom upon which to rely?
Just rely upon the truth and facts... if people find that inadequate, then that is the reality of the human condition. No fake legal axiom will bridge that gap.
If you don’t want me to discuss it, don’t post a false legal axiom that proves a factual circumstance.