I've responded to every one of your assaults on my evidence, but now you're demanding that I reply in a very specific way and you're trying to dictate the conditions under which I can make my point. All this while implying I'm being subjective and ignoring my defense of my evidence.
Moving the goalposts isn't about the conditions you've omitted, it's about the ones you are trying to enforce.
The idea that a testimony isn't evidence is fucking laughable, especially when you don't even try to make a compelling case against Greenspan.
|