<sigh> Circumstantial evidence is absolutely admissible in court. And I think on this board agrees that establishing patters is critical.
My response to you was based on my all time high level of distrust in pretty much every organization in this solar system. It was not intended as a personal jab at you.
Can we pretend I didn't make that first response? I use a phone for this. I had just commented on another post and thought your response was to that comment. Thus, I screwed up and your comment was not at all confusing and assuredly has merit. Thanks for your attention to this matter and for having the patience of Job.
You assume that is what they are trying to do. You also assume that their definition of "bad actors" matched yours, to some degree or other.
Circumstantial evidence is admissible. Establishing patterns is important to a case.
I wouldn't have endorsed a position I didn't support, so I am a tad confused about "assumptions" being anything but the obvious.
<sigh> Circumstantial evidence is absolutely admissible in court. And I think on this board agrees that establishing patters is critical.
My response to you was based on my all time high level of distrust in pretty much every organization in this solar system. It was not intended as a personal jab at you.
Can we pretend I didn't make that first response? I use a phone for this. I had just commented on another post and thought your response was to that comment. Thus, I screwed up and your comment was not at all confusing and assuredly has merit. Thanks for your attention to this matter and for having the patience of Job.
How dare you be human with your mistakes and all on the Internet!
Yeah, we're good.
Well, I am no longer confused. Thanks for taking the time.