lessthanjake wrote:OhayoKD wrote:lessthanjake wrote:
Lol, I’ve already met it. You seem to think that you responding effectively erases the existence of someone’s prior posts and obligates them to respond back to you or you can act like they’ve conceded the argument. That’s not how it works.
That depends on the situation. And in the situation where someone decided to spent 2 pages making a baseless accusation, insisted it was too hard to actually assess bias, and then folded at the first instance of scrutiny, while also still insisting the other party was biased, taking it an admission you're full of **** is really the only way to operate. Lest you feel enabled to keep well-poisoning while struggling with the subjectivity of 2 defenders being > 0.As a sidenote, this idea of applying a burden of proof here is odd. I think you’re invoking concepts you don’t exactly understand the application of. This isn’t a legal issue
It doesn't need to be. The Legal principle is rooted in a moral principle and the absence of a legal threat is not an excuse for your bull. If you can engage in doubling down on accusations, then you shall be expected to engage in defending the analysis justifying those accusations. Your failure to do should and will be held against you.
As it will be held against every single Jordan fan who decided to partake in your farce.
You bit off way more than you can chew. Either stop chewing, or swallow.
Lol, it’s quite ironic that this post comes hot on the heels of you having accused others of having “tantrums.” Anyways, I can see I’ve hit a real nerve for you, and I don’t think it’s productive to engage with someone who is behaving like this. It’s also really not substantively necessary IMO. As I’ve said, I’ve made my points. Others can read our posts and make up their own minds. I’m quite comfortable with that.
You say it's a tantrum, I say it's taking your crayons away.
