If memory serves, binary star systems are more common but the statement was specifically on the system around Sol

Like what

Would you rather they do nothing at all cause that's the other legal option they have at this moment

The dichotomy of actual law vs the subjective reality is definitely an issue that should be discussed, I agree. My only issue is that you posed it as a rebuttal and degrading my statement. I could have been less lazy in my wordage and assumed that people would understand the meaning behind it.

It wasn't my intention to make it seem like I was trying something shifty, I was legitimately just clarifying my meaning and using more accurate terms to do so. I do see how one could interpret it like I was changing positions as words do matter

Bruh. I don't even know what your point is. All you've done is "well actually"'d through this whole back and forth while I've clarified my point.

It's like I said the sky is blue and you came back with well it's really clear but the defraction of sunlight through the atmosphere disperses the color blue more than other colors due to its shorter wavelength making it look blue. It's a net zero contribution to the conversation other than to make you feel smarter for saying it that way

You cannot win a defamation case if they used truthful statements or statements they had reasonable belief of it being true. Sorry I used "can't sue" as a layman way of saying "can't win" because it's obvious that anyone can physically sue for any reason and it's equally obvious that anyone who is being sued must go through the court system no matter the suits legitimacy.

The fact that I had to spell all that out explicitly is wild. They should be taken as contextually assumed so we could discuss more interesting bits instead of "but what about obvious thing? And other obvious thing?"

What, like several decades of evidence of him being a shit show? Pfft who'd have that? The Internet, major TV networks, and most new York News publications?

I was clarifying my point, not moving goalposts. I can't help if you assumed the goal was in a different place and argued based on that false assumption. That's why I clarified my point since you seemed to have consistently missed it.

My point has not changed nor has the context in which I made it.

Not sure I've ever been directly told that despite being just me with my daughter most days/weekends due to my wife's work schedule. Thinking on it, it's probably that I look way more intimidating than I am

Since it seemed to have still passed under the radar, let me rephrase: they can be ignored when discussing statistics and viable law.

Ofc any actual lawsuit must be literally dealt with through the court system.

But when you're talking about laws and suits, they do not need to be accounted for on the same level as legitimate cases

While you are pedantically correct, I was speaking with the understanding that frivolous lawsuits can be ignored. Like, you could sue a person you've never met for stealing your intellectual property that you don't have with absolutely no evidence or for wearing a blue shirt but no one would reasonably count those as actual suits.

Defamation requires falsehoods based on precedent and case law so a suit that alleges defamation when the person spoke no lies is not a reasonable suit and doesn't really count

Can't sue for defamation if the commentary is either true or had reasonable belief to be so