[bagster]

Given sufficient evidence, one doesn't have to be witness to a crime to know the truth of it. In this case, the available evidence and simple deductive reasoning, support my conclusion.

Bingo. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you and the rest of the blue-pilled deniers for about a year now.

The difference is, I have WAY more evidence with which to base my conclusion than you do in this particular case (and better deductive reasoning skills. Nothing personal).

p.s. The available evidence doesn't support your conclusion. You forgot to factor in what was mentioned. The Lt. Governor and the A.G.

But keep trying, Windy. You'll get there.

#BabySteps

Bagster

[Windflier]

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you and the rest of the blue-pilled deniers for about a year now.

The difference is, I have WAY more evidence with which to base my conclusion than you do in this particular case (and better deductive reasoning skills. Nothing personal).

Says a guy who's still madly following an internet hoaxter like a cultish true believer .. LOL

Blue pilled? Yeah, that would be me and 99% of thinking people who've actually got some powers of deductive reasoning, and who saw through the Q hoax a long time ago.

I'll give you one thing, Baggy. You ain't the brightest bulb on the bench, but you sure are entertaining ;-)