Evidence to Convict?

[RoadRunner79]

It;s back and forth with you, isn;t it, a moment ago "vague claims" weren't enough, but now you make vague claims about not trying to compare something to anything..despite this thread having been an offshoot of precisely that, and of your having done exactly that in previous threads with these exact same shit for brains comments.

So, in this case, w're supposed to believe -your- vague protestations of honesty and innocence against all evidence to the contrary?  

Yes, it was something a different topic, that made me want to inquire to a more basic premise.  To get an idea of how people think.    So I started a new thread so we could focus on that and not disrupt the previous conversation (similar to what I have asked people to do here, when they want to discuss something apart from my intentions with this thread).   This has nothing to do with extraordinary claims, or trying to prove a particular event; that is not my goal here.  I'm at least attempting to (although I may have slipped) to not make any arguments or debate the issue.  I'm trying to not even disagree too much, mostly ask questions or answer them with a few comments when I find something interesting.  I don't see where I've been vague about any of this.  And I don't believe that there is any evidence (I am aware of), that I have tried to bring anything else up here.

You may consider that any correlation in comments, is due to testimony being discussed in both.   Not the other way around.  One has to do with the principle, and the other with the application.  If flows from the general to the specific.
I also have the feeling, that no matter what I say or do, it is going to change your faulty assumptions.