Malevolence STILL useless?! Really?!?

"thecarterologist958;c-2057509" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-2057505" wrote:


No, I said from the start that only my original argument was without a source, and later confirmed it to be so. I never once claimed that all of my supporting arguments were all also only logic. I flat out said in the very same paragraph the devs had said that.

That would be foolhardy as it would make everything I was saying based on nothing. Much like all the claims I was wrong in this thread.

Asking for a source is lazy. I'm not asking anyone for a source. But if you want to say you've proven me wrong about what a source said then you must produce the source or you're just flat out lying.

What you call me sidestepping is me correcting faux pas committed by you and other dude. I mean I tried to be polite by calling it a subtle nuance of the english language, but really there's nothing subtle about prefacing a statement with 'dev's said'. It's pretty obvious, but like I said, I WAS trying to be polite.

Ony the third paragraph has anything to do with what you quoted, the other three are opposing something that isn't there. With respect to that one, I'm asking you to prove what I said about you is wrong, you have done so without a source and conveniently are, just as you said, flat out lying. That does not mean that every counterargument to what you say without a source is a lie however, which is what you implied with your nuance.

Not at all. You're little shenanigans to realign meanings of words will not hold. I didn't say anything about your sources. You are the one who claimed I was wrong about what sources said without producing the source. Wordplay will not change that.

Produce what the devs said and show it doesn't back up what I said it said or your argument holds no water.