IIRC, one of the problems Simon Singh faced in defending against the spurious libel attack by chiropracters was that the judge in the case interpreted his use of the word "bogus" out of context and in such a way that he would be left with an impossible task of proving that the plaintiff had knowingly and fraudulently promoted chiropractic treatments. Whereas it was clear in context that he had only claimed that the treatments they promoted for certain conditions were bogus in the sense of being unsupported by any evidence.

He appealed this bogus interpretation and eventually prevailed. Meanwhile the British Chiropractic Association (or whatever) Striesanded themselves into a bit of a predicament, so it all turned out OK :)

---
The emperor, undaunted by overwhelming evidence that he had no clothes, redoubled his siege of Antarctica to extort tribute from the penguins.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]