You: there's no evidence
You Later: The only evidence is ...
You just did a 180 in plain sight and are now avoiding it while trying to change the subject. What was that about being defensive again?
And no mention of you being completely wrong about me saying Irvin is guilty because of his past indiscretions and instead defending him in that regard. Not surprising in the least. Convenient though.
You also want to claim someone is making a strawman argument but your claim to being accurate is because "someone else also said so?" Oh my ironic stars! I'd say that's a bandwagon logical fallacy but what bandwagon? More like a skateboard. So basically you're claiming a Like Button Legitimacy to Argument stance. Wow. Lol. Ooooh, give this deep thinker some room here everyone. He's about to really make some revelations. Lol.
You're one of "those guys", eh? Completely unable, or unwilling to read between the lines.
I clearly meant "no evidence" in the context of being able to debate it. I stand by that statement. I do forget that it is often a mistake to not be exactingly literal when in the presence of such pedantry.
There is not enough evidence to debate. There. Does that help you understand a little better?
I am not wrong in my, and others, observations of your attitude on this topic. You are a top 2 prolific poster on this saga, so you have put plenty down on paper, to be observed. (Note. I understand that you aren't actually writing on paper. It is a figure of speech.)
My argument has never been based on what someone else said. I have pointed out that I am apparently not alone in my thinking. You do understand there is a huge gap between the two, don't you?
Then you finish off with the oh so predictable last bastion of the defeated....
One strawman after another. You clearly fancy yourself as the "deep thinker" here. I'm just an uneducated hillbilly. I'm ok with that. It makes it that much more fun to occasionally expose the self labeled geniuses like yourself.
Aren't you missing the View?
