Solitary Man

Quite assured. I actually went back and reread the exchanges, Neil. I did so before your accusation, though. Otherwise I would not have commented. As long as you're clear on who's who and what's what. Do try to understand that not everyone is preaching a gospel, especially not Amaleq13.

spamandham

lmao! Yes, why don't we all join hands and sing! :rolling:

Amaleq13

That's a surprise.

I do disagree with the logically problematic way in which it is stated and that would be my initial response to the statement.

I also can and have disagreed with the more logical affirmative assertion.

Anyone making an affirmative assertion has the burden of proof and I don't consider that a "card" one might "play" but simply an acknowledgment of the need for logical structure in rational discourse.

Positions at either extreme can and have been shown to go beyond what the evidence can actually support.

This is my final response in this rather boring game. :wave:

spin

Yeah. It's obvious that you can be evasive for no responsible reason for as long as you like.

You can claim said "logically problematic way", but, as you are unable to make more than a contentless whinge, your lack of position here is obvious.



Yeah, we know. I'm merely pointing out the vainness of your foray into the topic. You can be constructive. Why not try?

It should have been obvious to you that the people in the discussion were working things out. It's fine to try to unroughen the edges, but, if you pester rather than be helpful -- and that's what continuous pedantry will be perceived as --, you don't allow those "working things out" to do anything.

One extreme has been explored extensively for many hundreds of years. Why not give scope for the other end to be analysed with a little freedom?

The final evasion.




spin