EricHiggin said:
Who's head? Your so called 'parody' isn't an apples to apples comparison. You're making a claim and then expecting people to prove you wrong. You think someone should simply be able to say they think they saw you rape someone and now you have to prove you didn't, beyond reasonable doubt, or go to jail? KLA was responding to the initial claim, and the individual making the claim, or the others backing it up, weren't putting up sufficient evidence with direct ties to prove their claim. KLA's evidence wasn't exactly sufficient either, but they were giving the benefit of the doubt, as well as agreeing the claim could possibly be the truth, yet the others weren't doing so, until later on somewhat, once it was pointed out they weren't being consistent, in which they seemed to think consistency was so important. When both sides have insufficient evidence to prove their point, your verdict is guilty? This very likely means you go to jail btw. As with the original claim, you haven't proven your's either. Is that what you're really trying to point out? |
Alright buddy, you had your piece but it ain't that serious and never was.