I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm gonna suggest you read that again. I can't believe you can be that naive. "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?

> "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?

I suggest you read your own post again. Project much? Google's PR statement is somewhat based in fact. I'm saying that I generally believe public statements made that are decently substantiated.

When you're the one saying that I'm naive or just gaping in disbelief, the burden of proof is on YOU to give reasons why the statements are at fault and why their reasoning is wrong. This is truly projecting at its finest.

No. Google put a claim up. They have to back it up. Not the person questioning it. That would make no sense. So either you or Google need to back yourselves up.

>Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.

First, you've got it backwards: the burden on proof is to them for putting up such a claim (generally, to those putting up any claim), not to those who dispute it.

Besides, we have a long history of documented foul behavior by Google in search results. In fact this very story is based on a fine ordered because of this kind of behavior.