LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Dill]

(07-21-2020, 09:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to cease this back and forth as it is not productive and you don't appear to want to engage in a good faith discussion, instead parsing hairs, (deliberately?) misinterpreting what was said or engaging in semantic arguments.  I'll be happy to reengage when that ceases.

Jeezus.

No one on this thread has worked harder than Fred to establish a factual account of the Seattle shooting, separate from unsupported speculation.  No one has worked harder than you to substitute speculation for fact, defending that in part by calling factual challenges "personal attack" and in part by personally disparaging others, leading to these constant digressions into forum ethics, diverting discussion from the main topic of discussion.

Fred has not only done the work of providing and neutrally parsing sources, but when challenged by you to "prove" that you've posted unsupported claims, he has done that as well.  

When you accused Fred of personal attack for providing the example of your own statements, he quickly (because it is so easy to do) massed evidence that you have been the one engaging in personal attacks in this discussion. You cannot produce similar evidence of his "bad faith." But you demand that HE "keep things cordial." 

Where Fred puts in the work to secure claims and actually, logically REFUTE arguments, you simply dismiss them, and those who make them, and count that as a "win."  All part of the forum record now.

(07-21-2020, 10:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Out of context.  Which is, unfortunately, an old habit of yours and why I'm done with this particular back and forth.  However, if you feel the need to have the last word, please feel free.

LOL No "context" can save you from what Fred's demonstration establishes--your posts are peppered with disparaging comments aimed at the person of other posters.  His are not. No one else's are, in fact.

Your "old habit" is to make claims without support, then to deflect requests for proof, and then to accuse others of your bad faith actions.  They are suddenly "parsing hairs" or "(deliberately?)misinterpreting" or "engaging in semantic arguments" if they don't "trust you" without proof. They are "carrying water for China" or "supporting ISIS" or, in this case, "defending vigilantes" if they want to get the facts straight before judging. Your "new habit" is to weaponize the toc as part of your personal attack, demanding others stop doing what you are actually doing.

Fred's "old habit" is to support his claims with evidence, and build those into a logical demonstration--which is exactly what he has been doing on this thread--so far, better than anyone, putting more work into establishing what is and is not known about the Seattle shooting than anyone else.

OF COURSE you'll "be happy to reengage when that ceases. Then the discussion will be "productive" again.