Trump's Personal Lawyer And Campaign Manager Both Going To Prison

[Final-Fan]

EricHiggin said:

SuaveSocialist said:

1. That’s what the Burden of Proof requires. 100% of your sources being relevant in substantiating your claims.

2. Yup. It’s your job to provide verifiable evidence for your claims. Failure to do so undermines your position.

That’s just the minimum standard.

Stop crying about it.  

You have it backwards. Burden of proof is required by the accuser. The claim was made by the other individual that Muellers team was leak free. I did not agree with that. Instead of the other individual proving that, they ironically put it on me to prove my side. I offered my evidence anyway, which I mentioned isn't hard factual evidence, only indicators, and that was found to be unworthy of accepting apparently. Only then did they offer their proof, which happened to be an article about "theories" and "beliefs". That is not admissible as factual hard evidence either, and I do not find it worthy of their claim. Which would then mean neither of us have proven our case, and so we would be at a stalemate of sorts at the moment.

Why that somehow makes them just, and me a cry baby I don't know, because it doesn't make any sense. What I do know, is that I have been told my side needs to follow through this conversation at 100%, where as the other side can decide however much effort they want to apply. Somehow by doing less, and not knowing the entire story, the other side seems certain they are correct regardless.

You talk about doing things the right way and following the rules, yet you don't seem to do a very good job of it yourself.

But they WEREN'T INDICATORS.  Zero out of two that I checked, out of four total.  That is an inexcusable failure rate.  It's conceivable that the third and fourth ones were less worthless, but actually I guess it doesn't even matter:  if I'm not misreading your post you implied that you didn't intend for me to connect those links with the claim that there were "Plenty of reasons that sure make it look like there have been plenty of leaks from Muellers team".  Well, I'm sorry, but if you are just vomiting unconnected pieces of text at me then I see no reason to even consider it a conversation of any kind, much less one worth having.  Please let me know if that's the case so I can completely ignore you.

If you turn around and say that you WERE presenting evidence after all, then I reiterate that I didn't see the evidence in your links.  I explained why what I read failed to register as evidence of your claim with me, and at that point I consider the ball in your court as far as justifying why you consider it evidence and/or why my reasons for not considering it good evidence were faulty.  And if you say "well there was no evidence in the two you checked but there was evidence in the two you didn't", then please refer back to the earlier condemnation of "vomiting unconnected pieces of text at me". 

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 20 September 2018