One more post, then I will ignore this thread and your comments.
You included in your position the idea that the women *may* have failed to stop on command. You have clung to that theorem throughout the discussion, neither providing any evidence that they were commanded to stop, nor providing contradicting evidence to the stories I cited. You further use innuendo that the women not pursuing a lawsuit through the entire process, instead opting for a settlement, means that they have something they did not wish to publicize in court.
That is the theory you postulated. You have not provided evidence, nor have you countered the contrary evidence I provided. Argument by innuendo is another logical fallacy - a flaw in the shape and content of one’s position.
Have a good evening, FRiend.
I postulated no theory. I posed a question and you have repeatedly refused to address it. Your choice.