Dear Junkmaster: Let's examine the logic: I contend that people make allegations without evidence. However, the burden of proof always rests on the person making the allegations. That person can postulate, suggest, hypothesize, etc., until the cows come home, but until evidence is produced, it's all just unverifiable supposition. No one is required to rebut a charge of bad behavior in the absence of evidence.
I object now, as I always have, to the labeling as criminals individuals who have either been misguided, incompetent, poor leaders or a combination of all of the above, unless the evidence is presented. I wonder what in the human psyche compels people to believe that a bad deal is a result of a criminal conspiracy rather than just old fashioned, garden variety human failure? Is it just sexier to blame malevolence than admit that perhaps your initial faith was misplaced, and that perhaps some of the blame may be your own? I don't know, but I'll keep looking for some evidence. M. Aurelius Antoninus
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
