I don’t know how closely your time constraints allowed you to follow this thread. With all the waste-of-time word-walls, it’s easy to miss details.
Here is one I hope you caught, if only for humor’s sake. Our retired attorney/reigning king of word-walls explained how long-dead, moldering corpses can give real-time testimony. It’s so simple, really. The attorney merely decides what testimony the corpses could give that would most help his case, and then he posits that this is exactly the testimony the corpses *would* give, if only they were not desiccated, six-feet-under skeletons.
This is beyond words, isn’t it? It’s the old, do you laugh, cry, or just shake your head.
As I said, words fail.
It's certainly beyond any words I used, as NO WHERE did I talk about "testimony from corpses." Coming right on the heels of my last point about strawman mischaracerizations being the sign of the intellectually dishonest person, this is funny.
What I SAID was that Maraniss's account is incomplete due to his not having available several of the historical witnesses who would have had the most direct, first-hand knowledge. And that had those witness been alive (living testimony), we have reason to know what they likely would have told Maraniss since we know things they said and did while they were alive.
Got it now?
But moving back to prior discussion. I noted:
I've pointed out to you before that you've got no evidence of a pregnant S.A. anywhere . So that means either (1) she didn't give birth at all (which you're not claiming) or (2) it's quite possible to carry a pregnancy to term and have no extant witnesses to that 50 years later (which shoots down your supposed "point."). You had no answer to this logical deconstruction of your argument before; you have no answer now.
It's amusing how both you and DL act like you're so clever in ignoring the hard questions posed about your stupid positions.
But speaking of stupid positions, maybe you can help him out on one of his latest. See if you can find A SINGLE INSTANCE where a presidential candidate was asked to submit a church/baptismal record to establish his Article II eligibility. DL is claiming the Constitution inherently demands such proof and that birth certificates are the new church records. Certainly, if his suppositions are true, then we should find where those original Constitutionalists recognized this inherent requirement and responded with the "obvious" request for church records.
Try to help. Because if anyone is in need of help, he is.
I actually haven't been having much time to get into these discussions lately. Their is just too much other stuff I ought to be doing, so I sneak what time away that I can. :)
Here is one I hope you caught, if only for humor’s sake. Our retired attorney/reigning king of word-walls explained how long-dead, moldering corpses can give real-time testimony. It’s so simple, really. The attorney merely decides what testimony the corpses could give that would most help his case, and then he posits that this is exactly the testimony the corpses *would* give, if only they were not desiccated, six-feet-under skeletons.
He's such a narcissist that he cannot entertain the thought that everyone in History didn't agree with him. His world view simply doesn't allow for contradiction with whatever he himself wishes to believe.
This is beyond words, isn’t it? It’s the old, do you laugh, cry, or just shake your head.
Generally it's just best to mock and laugh when you encounter one of these. There's an old saying:
"Laughter rocks the highest throne."
People so full of themselves are not equipped to deal with deserved mockery.