[Paul Ross]

I've noticed something popping-up on FR with greater frequency: the notion that it is possible to accuse someone of "evasion" without informing them of what they are evading, or giving them the opportunity to not evade.

I've noticed that your evasions are just like this. Changing the subject, rather than acknowledging the issue you are evading. Then say that "no one gave you an opportunity to not evade." Everyone following ths thread honestly knows that the NAU proponents are in fact clearly at issue, probably most flagrantly, CFR partisans of the idea such as:

Robert Pastor.

Is that pointed reminder for you sufficient for you to "not evade" any longer?

[1rudeboy]

Frankly, no. The best way to see if someone is engaged in evasion is to ask them a direct question. You have yet to do so.

Although I find your presumption that your "opponents" are necessarily in favor of the NAU somewhat peculiar.