Did you say you can read? Which part of my caveat that "again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate" are you having problems understanding? Or is it that my detailed analysis of the alleged facts as reported in different sources doesn't comport with your predetermined opinion on the matter no matter what the act…
Did you say you can read? Which part of my caveat that "again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate" are you having problems understanding? Or is it that my detailed analysis of the alleged facts as reported in different sources doesn't comport with your predetermined opinion on the matter no matter what the actual facts are, so you've decided attacking me is a better response than acknowledging that the facts are unclear at the moment?
It was your citation. Either you stand behind it, or you don’t. No rationale is insufficient. If you’re going to use it, then you’d better have some substantiation. Got it, Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy?
The actual facts remain unclear at present. I understand that upsets your preconceived worldview of the case. I cited the NY Post and said I had no way of judging its accuracy. That's not a "rationale," it's a fact. But you are so very clever with your "Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy" labeling! I'm sure that made you feel much better about yourself. Snide remarks in lieu of expertise obviously help you cope. I'm out.
Did you say you can read? Which part of my caveat that "again this is the Murdoch NY Post, so I'm not saying this is accurate" are you having problems understanding? Or is it that my detailed analysis of the alleged facts as reported in different sources doesn't comport with your predetermined opinion on the matter no matter what the actual facts are, so you've decided attacking me is a better response than acknowledging that the facts are unclear at the moment?
It was your citation. Either you stand behind it, or you don’t. No rationale is insufficient. If you’re going to use it, then you’d better have some substantiation. Got it, Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy?
The actual facts remain unclear at present. I understand that upsets your preconceived worldview of the case. I cited the NY Post and said I had no way of judging its accuracy. That's not a "rationale," it's a fact. But you are so very clever with your "Mr. Self Professed Lawyer Guy" labeling! I'm sure that made you feel much better about yourself. Snide remarks in lieu of expertise obviously help you cope. I'm out.