- Jan 21, 2022
- 7,338
- 13,759
This discussion has only moved because you have changed the target - now we're back to the beginning:The point is, the discussion has moved in a direction I wasn't trying to take it. My point was to specifically point out how irrelevant some arguments were, and the responses to me have been to try to disprove what I already explicitly said I wasn't asserting. If you want to go back to my initial couple of posts and directly address my arguments against one or two posts trying to defend the developer's honor, we can probably have a more productive discussion... but insofar as defending a position of the "milking scamlord" theory being real, that was never my intention. I can see scrolling back that many of you have been tirelessly arguing against the idea for months. And I can understand why someone coming in here with any kind of post coming accross as support for that viewpoint is going to twang that nerve. But I'm not the Karen you are looking for.
No one was defending the developer's honor.
- In your assertion that you aren't making the claim, but you can see how others could - you are lending credence and credibility to a claim which has no evidence to support it.
- At the same time, you were stating that anyone contradicting the claim had no basis.
- To whit, I reminded you that it is not the people who contradict who have the burden of proof but, rather, the ones making the initial claim.
- You then proceded in your 'nonassertion' to say you could see their case because your memory shows the progress chart has been stuck in the high 60% for a year. -- though still swearing you're not making the claim, but seeing how others could take it that way.
- I showed at least one link (and one miscopied) to show your 60% memory was in err.
- You doubled down you weren't making that assertion, but could see how others could about milking.
- I stated that using that kind of language is akin to making an accusation of domestic violence without any proof except for a wife wearing a bandaid (I said not where - you then created a laceration on the senator's hand and a blackeye on the wife, using hyperbole to continue your "nonassertion").
- In response I linked to proof for December, October, August, and July that showed your memory was wrong.
- Instead of saying you were mistaken, you continued your belief that progress is slower than shown and again you weren't making any assertion of milking, but could see how others could see it as so.
And follow that with your misunderstanding of what the analogy was. It's not toward the developer's progress - it was toward your continued statement that while you make no assertion that the developer is milking, you see how others could see it so. When no one making that claim can show any evidence to back that claim - which is their burden of proof. If you need help, here's the diagram of the two thoughts:
You: I'm not asserting that milking is taking place,
Me: I'm not saying the senator beats his wife,
You: just that I can see why some people suspect that it is.
Me: I'm just saying I saw his wife wearing a bandaid.
It's a pretty straightforward comparison. If you only stated your first phrase, it would be obvious of your intent. But by adding the second clause, you are making a completely different statement.