This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
And sadly, it often works, at least in politics and for PR by ShermanOaksND
They are less successful in court, however. Too many "I don't recall" answers, in circumstances where the witness absolutely should recall, raise an inference of prevarication. If it can be proven that "I don't recall" testimony is knowingly false, it can support a perjury charge.
Even in politics, the tactic can backfire. In 2007, the then-Attorney General said "I don't recall," or variations thereof, anywhere from 64 to 72 times (depending on who was counting) during a Senate hearing on the firings of US Attorneys. There was a strong negative reaction to the testimony, and after four months of mounting pressure, the AG resigned.