Siwen, Who Told You That Miss Chan's "Suspected of Perjury" Means Your So-Called "Crime of Perjury"?

Siwen is at it again with his taken-for-granted assumptions. In Miss Chan's post "Strange, why can't Gao Tianhu be suspected of perjury?", the three characters for "crime of perjury" never appear. Miss Chan only says "suspected of perjury" -- in plainer terms, "suspected of fabricating evidence." But Siwen assumes this means what he calls "the crime of perjury." How incredibly presumptuous.

Everyone knows that for a crime to be established, facts must be established. If someone is "suspected of fabricating evidence" but hasn't used that evidence to commit a criminal act, it doesn't constitute "the crime of perjury." Using Gao's father's example: if he merely put his own material on the underpants but didn't use this material to accuse anyone, then of course it doesn't constitute a crime. But he is still "suspected of fabricating evidence," because he told everyone he had a piece of evidence with the criminal's material on it, when in fact the material was put there by himself -- meaning he fabricated the evidence he claimed to have. Since whether this fabrication of evidence is actually true hasn't been finally confirmed, it's called "suspected." Miss Chan's logic here is very clear.

But Siwen fundamentally can't grasp the difference between "suspected of fabricating evidence" and "the crime of perjury." He thinks Miss Chan saying "suspected of fabricating evidence" means she's saying "the crime of perjury." This only exposes his own confusion! Precisely because of this confusion, everything he wrote about "the crime of perjury" in his posts becomes completely off-target, having nothing whatsoever to do with Miss Chan. Because Miss Chan never said anything about "the crime of perjury"!

The reason I spend my days defending Miss Chan and Marx is that certain people constantly first distort others' statements, then launch off-target tirades at length. This behavior is extremely abnormal yet extremely common, which is why I have no choice but to step forward and defend Miss Chan and Marx! For example, in the case of Marx, that Yunguzi fellow actually slandered Marx as denying the exchangeability of commodities. This time Siwen slandered Miss Chan as saying "the crime of perjury." What does this demonstrate? Everyone can ponder deeply!