Let's keep emotion away to understand what's happening. You emphasise the alleged hate and are regurgitating the private investigator points. He made an accusation as an insult. And dug in on it, on his own FU money, to not lose the argument. It's not right, but missing the crucial context before and after: he was not the instigator, and he apologized for it after.
> Are you implying it is okay for Elon to make false child rapist accusation?
People say much worse than "pedo guy" in arguments, although this is subjective. In a response to another insult, I'll mark "Sorry pedo guy..." as an informal childish remark, not a sober threat with the intent to harm someone.
> Nobody said they were mutually exclusive.
> I am saying that he didn't apologize.
I don't understand what you're saying here. This means he can apologize for and also clarify the context behind the insult. So far, his last words on the topic in sworn statements are that he didn't mean the comments to be a statement of fact and apologized.
> Second the diver had to prove damage, which was hard to do.
They had to prove if a reasonable person would take the statement as a fact of matter. Whatever dirt he dug up with an investigator is something that happened after the fact, and private comments he made digging in are self-inflicted collateral damage, not preceding the comments in question.
> I have no idea how his general trait is relevant with this specific event.
The totality of the case also needs to mention the context that he was trying to help, on his own dime, children who were trapped underground. It doesn't make his comments right, but taking statements at face value lacks human context.
> Are you implying it is okay for Elon to make false child rapist accusation?
People say much worse than "pedo guy" in arguments, although this is subjective. In a response to another insult, I'll mark "Sorry pedo guy..." as an informal childish remark, not a sober threat with the intent to harm someone.
> Nobody said they were mutually exclusive. > I am saying that he didn't apologize.
I don't understand what you're saying here. This means he can apologize for and also clarify the context behind the insult. So far, his last words on the topic in sworn statements are that he didn't mean the comments to be a statement of fact and apologized.
> Second the diver had to prove damage, which was hard to do.
They had to prove if a reasonable person would take the statement as a fact of matter. Whatever dirt he dug up with an investigator is something that happened after the fact, and private comments he made digging in are self-inflicted collateral damage, not preceding the comments in question.
> I have no idea how his general trait is relevant with this specific event.
The totality of the case also needs to mention the context that he was trying to help, on his own dime, children who were trapped underground. It doesn't make his comments right, but taking statements at face value lacks human context.