You make assumptions that are almost laughable.
I'm not making any assumptions. You've taken issue with me because I refuse to make the same assumptions you evidently have.
On what do you base your first blunt statement?
On the long-established fact that no one person can
know whether another person knows a thing or not. And despite your previous claims to superhuman abilities, I do not believe you can read minds.
That all executives are honorable people that act in the best interests of the world and their clients?
I never made that argument, but you evidently expected that's what I was thinking. Thank you for proving my previous point in spades. You're evidently bad at knowing what other people are thinking, but that doesn't stop you from making things up to make it seem as if you do.
You habitually argue by assuming things that aren't known to be true. Then you respond emotionally when the eventual facts don't bear you out. If those assumptions regard some other person, and that person's behavior doesn't bear out those assumptions, you then regard that person as evil and behave accordingly to them. This pattern is likely to land you in hot water at some point. People here at ISF generally have a thick skin and walk away from these debates with little if any effect from such abuse as you're dishing out. But people whom you take to court and whose time you waste with your paranoid accusations may not be so indulgent.
I made absolutely no representation about the character of the people you're trying to accuse. Their character is irrelevant. Be they good or evil, you don't
know what they're thinking. But you aren't willing to listen to the argument your critics are actually making. You have to invent easy straw-man arguments that fit your conspiracy theory, and shove them in your critics' mouths instead so that you can keep pretending those critics are silly, irrational, or ill-intentioned, and therefore persecuting you. In court you will be required to address your opponents' actual argument, not what you pretend they're thinking or what you assume their reasons are. The system is not rigged when it forces you to either make suitable arguments or accept failure.
I considered suing a couple of the ones that perjured themselves, but the system is captured by big corporations.
You already have the standard excuses prepared for your inevitable failure. And like every disgruntled and unsuccessful plaintiff, that reason is never insufficient evidence and flimsy argument. It's always someone else's fault. This has been your pattern since I've observed you. You run away from every meaningful test of your claims, and then when you can no longer evade the inevitable failure, you lash out and blame everyone else. This is why the legal system is probably not the best way for you to obtain satisfaction.
I made a statement that they would not take part in a test to prove no harm.
What you did was tantamount to a superficially unobjectionable request that you expected to be declined precisely so that you could pretend the denial was for the reason you supposed. Quibbling over whether it was a "request" or a "statement" doesn't make your legal strategy any less ham-fisted.
You foisted an argument upon the defense, begged the question that it was self-evidently orderly and rational, then supposed the reason why they would not agree to adopt that particular argument. And you're clinging to your supposition tenaciously as if it were proven fact. You are so tightly bound up in circular reasoning that you ignore how this is the oldest and least-convincing rhetorical stunt in the book. Rather than accept that your clumsy attempt failed, you're pouting.
Their response speaks volumes.
No, it doesn't. You read volumes of assumption into their completely justified behavior and pretend that it's all part of a big conspiracy against you.
Like you, they wiggle out of it.
"Wiggle out" of what? Your laughable attempts at foisting elaborate obligations on all who doubt you, and then heaping shame and scorn upon them when they see through your scheme? You seem to think your critics are stupid enough to fall for such an obviously contrived dilemma. Pointing out where your thinking has gone awry does not carry with it a duty to perform whatever pops into your head to prescribe as proof of the ultimate point you're trying to make. Nor is it ever the case that a claimant gets to set the only terms by which effective rebuttal must proceed. Rational people easily see you frantically laying conspicuous rhetorical traps when reason fails you. Nor is rebuttal undertaken -- as you insinuate -- from a position where people secretly believe you're right. If you hope to prevail in court, you will need an argument that isn't so blatantly paranoid, theatrical, and devoid of fact.
You're trying to set a very high bar to someone even questioning your claims and the patently circular reasoning you've constructed around it. You're trying to give unpleasant consequences to the mere act of questioning your beliefs as a substitute for the facts that prove it. Shaming people when they don't jump through your arbitrary hoops is not winning legal strategy. Prepare to fail spectacularly in court, by your own fault. And don't be surprised if this ends more badly for you than you previously considered.
