Again, a totally empty sentence that has nothing do with the question I asked you. The paragraph was filled with facts. You refuting it's meaning in and of itself means nothing! Oh my.
Ok, I'll talk in the language of your far-away planet: What is the gaping crack in that paragraph?
I said it was all meaningless. If that doesn't trump any allegation of "facts" what does? I said your argument was off course. It was seeking to prove through insinuation the unprovable.
The gaping crack is that all the "doo doo" process in the world before a corrupted system is so much window dressing. Morally it's like arguing about the math you can do on a broken calculator. Even 20, 30 years ago Mr. Schiavo would have been sent packing from the courts, with excellent reason.