I didn't list one thing, I listed several, but I'm not surprised by this reaction. I knew you wouldn't accept it. I just wanted to demonstrate that you were never sincere in your request and were never going to acknowledge any evidence against your supposition, which was a stupid one by the way. So thanks for proving my point.
There was no evidence. You posted links about allegations, and stuff completely unrelated to what I asked. You yourself can't even think of an example, hence your posting of irrelevant links, claiming they prove your case when they don't. Why did you spam filler links? Which link has evidence? You MUST know considering you insist on it I checked your links afterwards anyway..They did not feature any evidence. Yet you claim they do, so why can't you even name a single link or case or specify any evidence. I don't think you ever investigated a single case in-depth. examined evidence to determine real guilt. You are just going off newspaper reports of allegations and arrests. Certainly no courts ever determined guilt. Why would I accept your claims that people are guilty of heinous crimes, if you can't even think of one? Why the filler links? Why should I accept your claim to guilt when no court ever decided it? I cited MULTIPLE of your links that did not, and were irrelevant. Why'd you include them? Why don't you specify your best example and tell me what your evidence is, and see if I accept it or not? I won't accept link spam with filler you intentionally included. Just admit you never properly examined a single case, you just jumped to conclusions. Why should I believe someone guilty when you can't even think of a case or any evidence, and try to pretend your links feature it when they don't. At least tell me which link. You insist that your evidence is there, featured in your links, yet you MUST know which evidence or which link in order to know that. The cat's got your tongue, you can't think of anything or even narrow down your links or tell me why you included filler links that did not. How could you know evidence is there without being able to tell me a single link that has it or just say what the evidence is? You are insisting you know things that require you to have the knowledge, the fact that you have no answers leads me to believe you don't really know that. At least tell me your best link. You prove my point, considering you can't even come up with a single answer whatsoever. What evidence is there that I am meant to acknowledge? If you can't tell me, then I'll figure there is no evidence to acknowledge. You insist I'm ignoring your evidence, even though you can't specify a single piece of evidence which I'm ignoring.
I've put more effort in this thread than you have, and as I predicted, there is no level of proof that would satisfy you. If you are not going to accept newspaper accounts, then what sort of evidence did you expect me to provide? I tell you what, why don't you put a tenth of the effort into this that I did and you go down each link and explain why it doesn't meet your criteria. Then maybe we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, you just look like someone who had their challenge thrown back to them in spades, and your are trying to raise the bar.
I already went through all the links, just in case. You can't even tell me which link has any. These links don't report and prove a crime. These links report or prove an arrest/allegation. At the end of the day, you accused me of ignoring evidence. You said your links had good evidence. Obviously not forensic evidence. Do you think someone getting arrested proves guilt? Criminal allegations should have real evidence. What do you suppose all the courts ignored? Should they convict people upon arrest? You say I'm ignoring evidence, but can't name a single shred. Yes you put in effort for that, more than I asked. Why did you put effort into posting links that weren't about terrorism or what I asked? That's you doing more work. I asked you to actually name the real-world evidence, not spam a bunch of links. You can't even name a single link or shred of evidence, the only thing I'm ignoring is your link spam. You'll make posts all day insisting I'm ignoring evidence, yet you can't even clarify or narrow down a SINGLE BIT which I'm ignoring. The least you could do is specify what it is you claim I'm ignoring, because I cited your filler that didn't which didn't apply. Why would I go through all your links, when the ones I've specified you can't even explain? Like the guy who shot at the WH? They clearly stated he was NOT found to be with OWS.. Why can't you at least admit not all your links have evidence, and explain why. As for effort, I'm not required to put forth effort to disprove your claim. The burden of proof is on you, it's your claim. You made heinous allegations and generalization, and for your evidence, you just gave links NONE of which you can tell me the evidence for or even point out a single case. Question: If you know I'm dodging evidence and that evidence is there, why can't you name what the actual evidence is? It's because you don't know of any evidence. Claiming I'm ignoring evidence in your giant list would mean you MUST know. The fact you have no answer proves it all. Why are you insisting you go through your haystack, when you could just show me the needle, which I've already verified isn't even there. Your assurance that it is means nothing. Just present it or admit you don't even have it. Do you at least admit you don't even know, hence why you have no answer?
