***Maybe, that is IF that’s what I said. You’ll note the difference between when I say... It means versus ... does it “mean”.
So why didn't you complete your own quote, you know, where you answer your own question? Here it is:
Kevmo: It means it is not reliable, with the obvious implications of forgery. So, does it “mean” forgery? Hell yes. Is that what she wrote? No, she wrote in CYA legalspeak.
Weren’t you the one who accused me of labelling everything you disagree with a fallacy?
No.
Well, now you are doing the same thing, unless you can come up with the specific fallacy.
Non Sequitur.
***This is your entire straw argument and has been all along. The image on the internet is a forgery. The expert with the affidavit says it’s unreliable and backs up Polarik’s analysis. And yes, Polarik definitely calls it a forgery in his testimony. You keep goin’ round & round on this and never seem to learn. Oh well, it’s too late, now that there’s a president zer0bama. Good luck in your future learnings. You’re really gonna need it, based upon your continued usage of classic fallacies that seem to be embedded in your thinking process.
There you go again with the "not reliable" equals "forgery" stuff - unbelievable!
So why didn’t you complete your own quote, you know, where you answer your own question? Here it is:
***That’s exactly what I was getting at when I wrote ‘You’ll note the difference between when I say... It means versus ... does it “mean”.’ I see you haven’t managed to shed any of the garbage embedded in your thinking process. Not that I’m surprised.
There you go again with the “not reliable” equals “forgery” stuff - unbelievable!
***Nope. Implied, not equated. But I wouldn’t expect you to know the difference.