Helsinki--the Tipping Point?

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2018, 12:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, I CLEARLY posed a question about this one incident, and you CLEARLY answered by stating a general principle--no rational person would change a vote because of one incident.

Then I CLEARLY "re-framed" the question to refute that principle, which I could and did "take fault with." That is not moving the goal posts. It is removing the ground from your point. Clearly rational people can change their vote because of one incident.

Then why did you feel the need to bring in previous events when refuting the answer?

Never mind, don't answer that. I don't feel like reading a soliloquy and to how you didn't ask a question you asked or how you didn't change the perimeters once the question was rightly answered.