Fist of all, Gubber, I appreciate you slowing down the conversation so as to give you a chance to catch up.
Oh I'm doing just fine, it is you who is trying to slide away from your obvious blunder here.
Second, yes, I actually did bring up "first hand tesimony," but no, it wasn't because I intended to introduce the first-hand testimony, myself, as you mistakenly presumed.
I never once said you intended to "introduce" anything of the sort. Looks like you're having another episode with your learning disabilities. What is it this time, comprehension I guess.
Are you still with me? Or, am I moving to fast?
Velocity has never been your problem wade, it is your inability to argue coherently.
Third, Simon didn't present any evidence at that point, himself, but simply made the non-descript reference to: "This was shown to be a bald-faced lie multiple times." Notice, that Simon didn't mention me by name
So what? Who said he did? You are the one who jumped in the middle of his exchange with Trev, and you claimed to be "correcting" Trevor's failure to properly understand what hearsay means.
so one cannot reasonably assume from this that Simon expected, or that I intended, to present evidence myself. Keeping up?
Keeping up with your straw men? You're trying to complicate what is a rather simple matter. Simon said something had been proven a lie. Trevor said nothing had been proven either way. You then interject with your usual lecture series, which was directed, not at Simon,but rather Trevor. This, despite the fact that it was Simon, not Trevor who claimed something had been proven via testimony.
Fourth, there is one thing for certain, my point wasn't to imply that I would provide documented firsthand evidence
Your implication was clearly that Simon's point was supported by "documented first hand testimony" whereas Trevor's was not. Otherwise, why did you condescendingly lecture Trevor, and not Simon, about the meaning of hearsay?
But obviously you've done a google search of the Tanner store incident and realized you screwed up by implying the critics are the ones relying on hearsay. So now you are backtracking and trying to play us all for fools by saying that you never intended to imply such a thing, and you think you can weasle your way out of it by ignoring teh context of your statement. OK, then what was your point? You still haven't said.
as obviously evinced by the fact that I am not Simon, nor was I a part of the exchange between Simon and Trevor.
You keep bringing up irrelevant anecdotes such as these which do nothing but derail the focus off your obvious implication. But we know this is by design.
Fifth, again, my comment had in mind the non-descript reference to: "This was shown to be a bald-faced lie multiple times."
If this were true, you would have lambasted Simon for relying on hearsay. Instead, you attacked Trevor for simply pointing out that Simon was wrong. Again, the context contradicts the scenario you are trying to reconstruct from teh evidence.
Having been privy to what, on multiple occasions, was shown, which included documented statements from Dr. Midgley, my point did not have in mind me providing that documented first-hand evidence--as evince by the conspicuous absence of anything remotely suggesting that I would.
The Tanners have their own version of things which has been documented just the same. So why are you preaching to Trevor about the insufficiency of "hearsay" when his source is just as authoritative as yours, a documented first hand account of the way the incident occured.
My point made no mention of what had or had not been proven either way (yet another of your false presumptions). It was entirely silent on the issue of proof.
No it wasn't, The fact that you chose to address Trevor instead of Simon, speaks volumes. Again, both sides are relying on first hand testimony. So why in the Bejeezus did you go on a rant about hearsay with Trevor, when he wasn't relying on hearsay? The only logical conclusion is that you believed the apologetic side had first hand testimony whereas the critics only had hearsay. If you say this isn't what you were getting at, then well you're simply lying. At some point you decided to educat yourself on the controversy and then ealized you screwed up and spoke too quickly, so you then had to do all this damage control after making an idiot of yourself with your hearsay lecture. This is all you're doing right now.
And, my point (please listen carefully here) has to do with the manner in which the testimonies are presented.
Then why were you addressing Trevor instead of Simon? Your new explanation for your "point" makes no sense given the context. You attacked Trevor for simply stating a fact that
nothing had been proven. Since Simon asserted something had been proven, and you immediately jumped in, it is perfectly clear what you were trying to do. You were defending Simon indirectly and responding to Trevor's claim that what Simon claimed was a lie, was not proven to be a lie. Clearly you believed Simon's claim had been proven otherwise what was the point in responding to Trevor with such aggression? Keep ignoring the question; it is what you do best.
There is an authoritative difference between someone's hearsay of what someone who was allegedly there had allegedly said, and someone providing documented first-hand testimony. Did the light finally dawn in your convoluted brain?
This is supposed to be news? We know this. But you attacked Trevor as if he didn't know it. Now why would you do this? What you haven't explained is how this information pertains to anything Trevor said. The only way it could be relevant is if you were saying Trevor relied on hearsay and Simon did not. But as it has been explicated to your tiny brain numerous times now, Trevor's source is just as authoritative, so your speech is nothing but a waste of hot air. But we all know the bulk of your posts are for your own benefit. You apparently like to hear yourself speak, no matter how uninteresting the content.
Please carefully note that there is nothing in what I just said that could reasonably be interpreted as me intimating that I would be providing documented first-hand testimony. To think that I did, would be a figment of one's convoluted imagination. Have you reached cognition yet?
No, I just understand how to consider context in basic comprehension. You think you can just abandon context and everyone else is supposed to just go along with whatever recreation you come up with, just to suit your need to squirm out of yet another embarrassing corner you painted yourself into. Your "clarification" makes no more sense than Schryver's version of the "C-word" incident.
I understand your defensive reaction.
My defensive reaction? I just highlighted the fact that you're taking a page out of Schryver's book. You're not only intellectually deficient, but you are also intellectually dishonest. Anyone with two brain cells can see what you were trying to get at with your little hearsay lecture. You were just too ignorant at the time to realize that the apologists rely on teh same kind of evidence the critics do. But you didn't attack Simon did you. No, you attacked Trevor, because you thought Trevor was relying on inferior sources.