You don't exactly look sane going back and forth with tanoomba for hours at a time.You have to admit watching a grown man lose his mind has always held some entertainment value.
That would imply there is some sort of exchange going on here.You don't exactly look sane going back and forth with tanoomba for hours at a time.
Whose fault do you think that is, Mr. "Didn't read"?That would imply there is some sort of exchange going on here.
There isn't.
Again:Probably the fault of the terminally myopic retard who thinks burden shifting fallacies and appeals to perfection fallacies are substitutes for proving Emma was raped.
You have demonstrated no such thing. Objectively.You can deny it all you want, I've already demonstrated that to be the case. Like I said, your arts education failed to teach you to think linearly, so you can comprehend how some events come before other events, and that you have to demonstrate the validity of prior claims before you get to bitch about conclusions drawn about your failure to do so.
Your only attempt to back up your claim washere, and you failed miserably:My claim: WE DON'T KNOW what happened. Proof does NOT EXIST that can allow us to conclusively know what happened.
Your claim: Sulkowicz was lying, which has been proven by (copious) hard evidence.
None of that constitutes "hard evidence" by ANY metric. If you had even a shred of integrity or honestly you would have thrown in the towel and admitted that your claim was factually incorrect. Instead, you decided to play the "let me make as many baseless insults as I can to hide my shame" game, which is your go-to every time I school you (and this has happened several times now).the claim that she is a liar is based on the combination of her failure to justify her claim that she was raped, combined with her behaviors in private and public as a result of her failure to justify her claim in the most lax and forgiving court room setting possible.