King of the Hippies
- Nov 22, 2009
As I previously said - If you feel the tone was not appropriate, that's a feelings thing, and your emotions are yours to manage; I am unable to change that, so probably better to move on to more material items.Yes, and my criticism comes back to the only way to justify it is if the detail was material to my claims, and therefore I still maintain that the tone was not appropriate given the circumstances.
Of course it's valid, as it's just an opinion I expressed. At the same time, my opinion/s can also be entirely ignored by external parties if they disagree with them and don't feel like challenging me.Just because you think I should verify better as a general working principle doesn't make your expectation valid.
Not once have I suggested you need to apologise for anything.Opinion noted. But again, I make no apologies whatsoever for skim reading the first few paragraphs.
I have no idea what the first half of you sentence means, but you've indicated you don't want to discuss the OCR thing, so no stress. Since you are the only person (I sincerely hope), who is able to dictate who and/or what you respond to, I'm not sure what relevance the latter half has to me.Well then I stipulate that the cause for the OCRing of the text is missing data, and feel that I should not have been addressing it in the first place.
Of course you can - I am in full agreement that you are under absolutely no obligation to respond to anything I say.No, it's not my problem. You're claiming it is my problem, and I'm rejecting your claim. I can get by just fine without answering the questions you started asking me.
Well of course I'm going to be persistent if you frame a response in a way that is not actually a reflection of what I said, or incorrectly conveys the opinion I hold. If it is bothersome, then just don't respond, and I'll have nothing to reply to, and that will be the end of that.Because you kept asking me to explain myself, and then disputing the explanations.
I am talking about Giuliani, Schweizer, etc (i.e. the people who are claiming to be in possession of original source material).I don't think people reporting the evidence they've found in an article necessarily translates to claims of proof.
Yeah, but let's be clear - I posted the OCR thing, you asked me why I thought it was notable, and my response was that I did not think it was. No reason it couldn't have ended right there. As for speculation, all of this is, whether we like it or not, since there's simply no verifiable evidence available at this time. Finally, I am not just randomly quoting your posts - I am quoting your responses addressed to me, a chain which you decided to start, don't seem to want to continue, are the only person who has anyone control over when you choose to engage, and yet here we are.Right, I should have rather said that I do not wish to speculate at the outset and ignored the OCR aspect entirely, as well as everything that flowed from it. However, in the interests of politeness, I decided to try and entertain your questions as best as I could, because you did quote my posts, after all.
Well, that's not true - you were very clearly referencing the following (also, I am not asserting the OCRring of the document as fact, I just pointed out that it looks very much like it was OCRed and explained why [for clarity, this is not a fact, it is an observation]);Just to be clear, when I was talking about facts, I was talking about the facts you introduced, namely the OCRing of the document. You brought that up, and then you admonished me for not paying attention because I made the mistake of saying it was possible that the lawyer was inept at handling redactions after trying to discuss hypothetical answers to the questions you were raising. I'm really not interested in engaging with someone on those terms.
This is the entire statement to which you were responding to, for clarity:
Which you responded to with:
"Please quote any claim of proof. So far as I can tell, I have only claimed that it is evidence, which I am personally inclined to credit. That's not claiming it's proof, and if you're going to start talking about proof, then you've just smuggled in the criterion of certainty, and I imagine you'll wish to avoid that. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect people to only believe that which can be proven, and if you do, well, I say it's up to you to demonstrate it.
I'm not interested in entertaining a discussion where it's presumed that the discussion and questions will entail some sort of performance aimed at giving proof. If that's what you want, give me investigatorial powers inside the United States and the manpower necessary to actually see what's what and then we can talk again.
I'm certainly not interested in a conversation where you just keep noting facts that haven't been explained and then continuing to ask and ask until you find a contradiction, at which point you proclaim "aha!" like you've already done once, as if the performance that is to be expected on my end is some sort of attempt at proof, where I'm supposed to discharge all of your objections or else it isn't "proof". "
I've subsequently cleared up your misunderstanding of paragraph 1, made it explicitly clear that what we are discussing in paragraph 2 is my need for evidence in the light of assertions being presented to me. I'm not the one making claims [often delivered, oddly, as factual].
If this is the parallel you would like to draw, then I am forced to ask you if courts of law tend to accept as evidence things like unverified screenshots on Twitter as evidence? Or bad-quality scrubbed PDFs of emails, without the actual email itself being anywhere to be found?You're entitled to your opinion, but nothing you've said so far gives me any reason think it is fitting to this situation, on the grounds that your standards are so strict that they invalidate the possibility of using witness testimony in a court of law.