Before you laugh yourself to death, try reading for comprehension.
Once again, I’ll try to use small words:
Drad dog suggested it for his one point. Terr said only if we stick to the law for the entire discussion. No one ever agreed to that. So it’s a bogus derailment.
CMYK: You realize that as soon as there is no obfuscatory haze left in the air some of our dear friends will abandon the thread. You heard the prediction here first.
What you appear to be having difficulty in understanding is that it’s the person who makes the claim who has the obligation to “search” for support for that claim.
Challengers of that claim have no obligation whatsoever to search. The obligation rests squarely on the claimant (you, in this case).
Again, the homework is yours to do. We await your search results.
I assume that by “interretation” you probably meant “interpretation.” In any case, the bit in blue is easily refuted by your own post (#1778):
It’s difficult to construe your “do you simply object to someone discussing” as anything other than a reference to this thread. You were addressing cmyk, who had posted:
You replied to cmyk as quoted above. If you were asking “do you simply object to someone discussing” in reference to discussions somewhere other than this thread, why didn’t you name that venue? And what was that other venue?
Suggesting that something needs a good Pitting, and that perhaps the Pit is the place for said Pitting, is Junior Modding now? That’s…creative thinking.
I agree that the state is responsible for Sandra Bland’s care when in state custody. I’m also in favor of an official investigation into the matter. I reject the lynch-mob mentality of those who immediately condemned the police for murdering Sandra Bland. And I bow to your experience creating hobgoblins.