This is a you problem. I’ve politely to find something that agrees with you and you can’t. That’s because what you are saying isn’t true. I’ve given you several documents and you’ve provided nothing.
I’ve politely shown you that your own link agrees with me and you, in bad faith ever since, have avoided addressing the content of your link. You have not given me several documents, you have given two links one which I showed said the opposite of your point and one which I showed was not relevant. Stating it as several documents is a weak rhetorical tactic to try and make you sound like you have performed better than you have and is in reality just a lie.
Use the first two sentences of your link and explain how none of the criteria applies. You won’t. You are dishonest and the engaging in bad faith. I really do hope it’s some sad pride that makes you dig in on this topic.
If there is a problem with me then it’s that I call out bad faith arguments. Like yours.
This is the final time I am stating this. This is your problem. You have provided nothing but a misunderstanding on the topic. You have provided zero documents to back your claim. When challenged about that, you double down on the claim but again can’t cite any group that agrees with you. If this is true as you claim, you should be able to provide some documentation to cite your claim, but you can’t. Could that be because you are wrong? That is the obvious answer and that answer I am going to take since otherwise it would be easy to back your claim.
You have provided nothing but a misunderstanding on the topic. You have provided zero documents to back your claim.
I provided you with a quote from the first two sentences of the same document that you supplied. Do you need me to post the exact same link in order for it to count in your mind?
I provided you that quote and then narrowed it down stating exactly which parts applied. You have never once addressed that. You tried to introduce a requirement of other external documents. I don’t need to provide other documents or usage cases because the link you provided sets the criteria. I asked you a question about that link. You have been avoiding that link ever since.
I don’t think you are even tracking what you are saying.
What is my claim?
My problem is dishonest people. I can keep saying that.
What does not apply? The quote from your own link does not apply
This is a you problem. I’ve politely to find something that agrees with you and you can’t. That’s because what you are saying isn’t true. I’ve given you several documents and you’ve provided nothing.
As I said this is a you problem.
I’ve politely shown you that your own link agrees with me and you, in bad faith ever since, have avoided addressing the content of your link. You have not given me several documents, you have given two links one which I showed said the opposite of your point and one which I showed was not relevant. Stating it as several documents is a weak rhetorical tactic to try and make you sound like you have performed better than you have and is in reality just a lie.
Use the first two sentences of your link and explain how none of the criteria applies. You won’t. You are dishonest and the engaging in bad faith. I really do hope it’s some sad pride that makes you dig in on this topic.
If there is a problem with me then it’s that I call out bad faith arguments. Like yours.
This is the final time I am stating this. This is your problem. You have provided nothing but a misunderstanding on the topic. You have provided zero documents to back your claim. When challenged about that, you double down on the claim but again can’t cite any group that agrees with you. If this is true as you claim, you should be able to provide some documentation to cite your claim, but you can’t. Could that be because you are wrong? That is the obvious answer and that answer I am going to take since otherwise it would be easy to back your claim.
I provided you with a quote from the first two sentences of the same document that you supplied. Do you need me to post the exact same link in order for it to count in your mind?
I provided you that quote and then narrowed it down stating exactly which parts applied. You have never once addressed that. You tried to introduce a requirement of other external documents. I don’t need to provide other documents or usage cases because the link you provided sets the criteria. I asked you a question about that link. You have been avoiding that link ever since.
I don’t think you are even tracking what you are saying.
What is my claim?
My problem is dishonest people. I can keep saying that.