The exclusion of links related to FGGR's main dispatches, which he randomly dismissed, "discrediting" of SCUT opponents by outdated information, and the entire host of dispatches that can easily be found in the OP.Devi Vytherin wrote:La Navasse wrote:I don't see how this is helping the case in any way.
I'm not playing the opposition's game of throwing as many long lists of links as I can at my opposition and judging who's lists are longer - I know I've already laid out my evidence, and I'm not in any urgent need to repeatedly quote and requote lists of irrelevant links in an attempt for legitimacy. The opposition is refusing to accept the evidence, and I don't think, Derps, that claiming there's fallacy in my reasoning (not that you've specified any) or trying to covertly allude to some meaningless end helps at all.
Ah yes, the 'force the reader to trawl through the entirety of a lengthy thread to see the nuances of my stance' gambit. Works every time.
Let's start simple, then. Boomer went out of his way to provide a list of links that *support* your case. In what way is that section incomplete or inadequate?