Watch for Updates


Link to Al Thompson webpage where discussion began:


Al Thompson June 26, 2017

If you think that we are lying, then bring forth the evidence and I’ll post it in the comment section or I may even write another article about it.

Now is the time to put up or shut up.

Robert Baty June 26, 2017

Proposition for Discussion

There were no reasons justifying the State
of Alabama’s taking of Baby Holm.

– Al Thompson: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny

Let me know if you want to advance that claim you seem to be making in your article and we can look for a neutral venue to negotiate how best to produce that discussion, or perhaps a couple of venues, one of each of our own choosing, to mirror the discussion.

Or, you might just submit your own first affirmative effort to justify your proposition and I will consider accepting it or explaining why your effort failed.

Al Thompson June 26, 2017

We can do it here but I’m not affirming anything.

I’m not an oath taker.

You can start it by producing some facts that show the Alabama codes apply to the Holm family.

Robert Baty June 27, 2017 

@ Al Thompson,

Thanks for the response.

I’ll take your response as meaning that, for all you know, the State of Alabama did have legal, constitutional reasons for taking custody of Baby Holm.

If, after what you said in your challenge, you are not
going to “affirm” anything (which is not “oath-taking” by the way), there is no discussion to advance here.

If you want to take up the negative in response to my fundamental affirmatives in the Baby Holm case, you can come to my place and we can try to get it going; and you would be welcome to mirror it whereever you want.

Thanks for the consideration.



Al Thompson v. Robert Baty – Baby Holm — No Comments

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>