I though libel was the deliberate publication of falsehoods with the intention of, or disregard for, injuring another person. Otherwise, it was just BS journalism (BTW, this is in the US. I know many countries, in particular UK, give libel a broader definition).CSABadass said:1) Libel is the publication of falsehoods, or at least that's what they told me when I got my B.S. in journalism (and learned how to B.S. in my journalism), so I stand by the use of the term.
And as for the Union conspiracy, one version of the US Civil War I have read here (I believe it is in the POTM thread in OT) went something like this:
- In 1845 the US was allowed to join Texas. In 1861 there was a disagreement, and the northern states left Texas, with the southern states remaining.
- A war was fought, which Texas would have won handily, but for the interference of the other southern states.
- In 1865 the rest of the nation was allowed to join Texas once again.
Not sure, but I believe this was posted by someone from Texas.
I am pretty impressed by P'dox's historical research for leaders and ministers even with the disputed inaccuracies (though I notice no one's ever argued with Richard Nixon being a Backroom Backstabber as HoG
). And quite a few of us have learned and discussed many interesting minor figures in history here.