[debacle]

Because that's defamation.

[raganwald]

This is a kind of Ad Hominem Circumstantial, turned inside-out. Sometimes we slam someone’s statement by pointing out their self-interest. This is supporting their statement by pointing out their self-interest, but it has essentially the same form.

Either way, it is not a direct argument with the statement.

[jeremyarussell]

Only if they can prove the Kaiser spokesperson was lying.

[oconnore]

Do you have any evidence to support them being especially ethical, or is this just a gut reaction?

The facts are that we don't have enough facts, we have an unsubstantiated accusation that should be treated as such.

[debacle]

Countering an unsubstantiated accusation with another unsubstantiated accusation isn't going to get us anywhere.

It's not about being ethical. It's about exposing yourself to liability.

[oconnore]

Where, exactly, did I make any accusation at all?

I said we don't have enough evidence to make meaningful claims, which I still hold to be true.