you understand that argument because of the paranoid consistency of its logic. You don't understand it from the standpoint of evidence. Your pattern as a poster has usually been to ignore that distinction.
I don't ignore it. I actually listen to people and try to understand where they are coming from and why. The reason I disagree, with this stance, is evidence and history as I don't see it justified.
Much better than a pattern of acting like a jerk, mocking others and assigning them their positions and reason as you see it. Something you have excelled at in this discussion.
Last edited: