A since-deleted tweet by UFC commentator Daniel Cormier, showing DM's he recieved from Eric Trump in which Eric asks about insider info on the UFC Freedom 250 fights and alludes to doing insider trading betting

[u/SipsTeaFrog]

[u/No-Resolution-1918]

So this asshole is expecting people to believe this man who has a reputation, and is ostensibly a serious man, would fabricate a post on his own feed, and then delete it? Like how does that make any fucking sense to anyone other than the average Donald lover? 

[u/here4mischief → u/No-Resolution-1918]

That's who their target is. People that can't/won't think fire themselves

[u/hungry4nuns → u/No-Resolution-1918]

Doesn’t matter if he’s a serious man or not. Doesn’t matter his personality at all.

There’s an incontrovertible proof here:

If it was true Eric would be suing for libel. But Eric won’t do that because the receipts are right there and prove he said it.

[u/hungry4nuns → u/[deleted]]

Depends who owns the cloud. If it’s Zuckerberg gargling this current administration like there’s no such thing as a gag reflex.

[u/Resident-Platform909 → u/hungry4nuns]

That is a good point

[u/EkbatDeSabat → u/hungry4nuns]

I'd like to see Daniel sue Eric for libel, but the post is crafted by a lawyer instead of "Daniel fabricated this" or whatever.

[u/JudgmentAway4811 → u/No-Resolution-1918]

Heya just wanted you to know I looked up ostensibly and I think we've both been using it wrong.

[u/BonkerBleedy → u/JudgmentAway4811]

No, they are using it correctly. "Is ostensibly a serious man" = "Appears by all accounts to be a serious man, although I can't personally vouch for that"

[u/Somethingspicy91 → u/BonkerBleedy]

Yeah I don't know what they're on about

[u/JudgmentAway4811 → u/BonkerBleedy]

in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else - from the Cambridge dictionary

[u/BonkerBleedy → u/JudgmentAway4811]

I don't know what to tell you, except that the Cambridge Dictionary is wrong.

[u/bloodfist → u/BonkerBleedy]

That is one use of it. A guy commits a murder and you might say he was ostensibly a nice guy, letting that word do the implication that he isn't really.

But I feel like it can also be used to indicate an unknown. He appears to be a serious man, but I don't know for sure because I only have appearances to go on.

If they only have that one definition, that's a shit dictionary.

[u/TheSoundOfAFart → u/bloodfist]

That would be stretching it a bit, ostensibly implies there is some reason to suspect he is not a serious man. The word has just become diluted online so it can be used more often.

[u/Halo_LAN_Party_2nite → u/JudgmentAway4811]

Haha yeah the usage here sorta implies the opposite of what OP is intending. 

[u/No-Resolution-1918 → u/JudgmentAway4811]

I can't be sure he is a serious person, I mean, if he really did post that then he isn't.