All I have is (what I consider to be) circumstantial evidence.
It doesn't matter what you call it. If you're unwilling to present it and participate in a discussion of its meaning and probative value, you might as well have no evidence of any kind whatsoever.
Jay is happy to provide abstract definitions of circumstantial evidence and consilience that I think I understand, but he keeps telling me that I don't.
No, let's be clear what's really happening. I write at length on several topics that affect your claims. You largely ignore me, except when you see something you think you can twist to your advantage. Then, and only then, do you engage, and that engagement is invariably limited to one of your standard word games such as equivocation.
You apparently think this faux confusion is fooling your critics. You are playing the part of the congenial-yet-befuddled old man just trying to get along in a friendly debate. The problem is that you're a terrible actor. No one buys your performance for a minute. It's predictable and shallow, and follows a well-worn pattern of fringe argumentation. You're just not as clever as you think you are.
I can go back and try to look up these examples, but that will slow me down -- and as you know, I'm too slow already.
Wow, you have some wontons. Where to begin...
You're the obstructionist. I assume you're familiar with the scene from Monty Python where the entire assembled cast shouts "Get on with it!" This is what you face here at this point in this debate, and you've plainly told us you have no intention of proceeding with a presentation of evidence until we all agree to your predeterminations. You're the one who, under those circumstances, wastes your allegedly precious posting time polling each individual critic to see whether he will take your latest equivocation bait.
You're also willfully disinterested. You tell us you read only the first bit of posts. And you clearly ignore many others in their entirety, yet have the uncanny ability to suddenly become very focused as soon as it seems someone has agreed with you or said something favorable to your claims.
This selectivity is insulting and frustrating to your critics, many of whom are genuinely trying to educate you or show you the error of your thinking. What's most telling is how you treat the outcome of that frustration. When someone throws up his hands in vexation and leaves, you celebrate it as a victory. That speaks very clearly to what you intend to do and how you intend to do it.
As I said, you're a terrible actor.
Not only should you go back and read the discussion you admit you've missed, you have a moral duty to do so. Your critics are under no obligation to follow your contrived circuit of deception, indifference, and repetition. You can happily filibuster for as long as the moderators tolerate you, but no one else is compelled to indulge you.
As far as I'm concerned, if I wrote it here in response to something you've said, you're responsible for reading and responding to it. If later you decide it was noteworthy, your penance is clear. You and only you are responsible for your ability and willingness to keep up with the debate. It's rich of you to suggest that your critics must repeat themselves so that you can grind another 100 pages out of this thread.
It's especially rich when it's common knowledge you have the time to maintain a blog parallel to this debate in which you report, in misleading one-sided fashion, what happens here. If you have time to publicly report on this debate in a venue where readers cannot see your critics' responses side-by-side with your representations, then you have time to go back and read what you intentionally skipped over.
It's high time you stopped treating your critics with such brazen disrespect. Man up and present your evidence without further insolence and evasion.
