>RE: LOL. so I'm a chump because I....did what again?

For your reading pleasure:

Here's my quote:
"I'm saying I think your position on this case right here is a CHUMP."

I didn't say you were a chump - I'm saying your position is a chump.

I think of you more as first a lovable, then penultimately pitiable, and finally as a cautionary: rube.

>you know why you can't address the words I actually said.

Here's what you said:
"if she says it happened and put her name on it I believe her."

That's in post 579. That's what I've been responding to.

>and you know why you can't mark anything I've actually done as
>an issue.

The good news is you haven't done shit except have an opinion and cyclonic/tsunamic-tourret storm reply to messages on a message board.

Now if I read of review of a gadget review that has a picture that says "I believe Tara, she said it I believe it" on an OLED screen
THEN you'd have done something.

Again I am responding to this:
"if she says it happened and put her name on it I believe her."

And I clearly say:
You are credulous.
You have a default position that s EASILY gamed.
AND
This accusation once looked is between problematic and not believable.


I'm not attacking you - I'm saying your position is naive, easily gamed, and ultimately the wrong one to have on this issue right here.

You disagree.

I GOT IT.

You've met my minimum requirements of proof.

I BELIEVE YOU.