if you say so. I actually think you do, what qualifies you to take fact from conspiracy? when you say "we" you identify yourself as part of a collective, signifying that you add something to it. but if you don't you should not say "we".
For example, if YOU had any experience you would not toss around a phrase like "circumstantial evidence". Mostly because it is just that, circumstantial, and therefor meaningless with nothing else other than your hope that someone did something bad so that "you" can be a "hero" and bring them to justice.
view the rest of the comments →
DocHolliday_sfmc ago
do YOU have ANY investigative experience?
Phobos_Mothership ago
Nice straw man, why should I focus on him?
DocHolliday_sfmc ago
on what? your lack of experience as an investigator? because that is what I asked YOU.
Phobos_Mothership ago
Which is a strawman, meant to imply that any of us claims we have experience as investigtors. Many of us do, but not all of us. And we don't need to.
DocHolliday_sfmc ago
if you say so. I actually think you do, what qualifies you to take fact from conspiracy? when you say "we" you identify yourself as part of a collective, signifying that you add something to it. but if you don't you should not say "we".
For example, if YOU had any experience you would not toss around a phrase like "circumstantial evidence". Mostly because it is just that, circumstantial, and therefor meaningless with nothing else other than your hope that someone did something bad so that "you" can be a "hero" and bring them to justice.