[nathanbedford]

Of course eyewitness testimony is admissible in court where it is also subject to cross-examination on issues of competency, bias, self interest, qualification etc. You are suggesting that we accept naked assertions as though they were gospel without cross-examination or any investigation whatsoever.

That is the full context. By quoting the limited portion you made plausible your assertion:

You’ve been on FR for a while, but I’ve never seen you act like this before.

Act like what? Presumably what you allege in the next preceding sentence:

Why would you say such a thing? I ask only that my “naked assertions” be treated as a data point to be confirmed or rebutted, rather than mocked and dismissed.

So presumably I am acting out of character because I "mocked and dismissed" your recital of your personal experience. But your conclusion doesn't fit the full facts as outlined in the full context. The full context reveals that I only suggested that your testimony would be "subject to cross-examination."

I acted responsibly, I did not attack you personally-I went out of my way to point out that I was insulting you personally-but you set up a false situation in which you could accuse me of doing just that. Context is everything.

[dsc]

“Act like what?”

I was speaking of remarks like this: “Mere allegations of voter fraud, or even malicious intention and dark suspicions are not evidence.”

Not just that, but I haven’t the time or inclination for a recitation of grievances.

As for what I haven’t seen you do before, I haven’t seen you react as you do here.