Female Privilege or Femme Fatale?

[laughing dog]

In other words, you have nothing to support your argument but your bias.

No. That is a dishonest twisting of what I said.

No, it is not. But thanks for getting nasty.

If your claims accords with reality, you'd have evidence to support it.

My claim was that the attempt to paint Holmes as a long-time victim of coercive control from a male partner would not make it out of the starting gate if the sexes were reversed. The evidence is that no such case exists.

Evidence against my claim would be a similar case where a male CEO claimed that he was under the coercive control of a female C-suite executive, and she was to blame for his fraud. I have never seen such a case and if there were one, I would be truly interested in its outcome.

The fact you believe something to be reasonable does not make it so.

You don't. Your conjectures about what accords with reality are relevant only to your state of mind, not to reality.

Personally, I will wait for the verdict and any information about jury deliberations before drawing a conclusion.

I don't have to wait for a verdict to know that no male CEO would attempt to claim his fraud was the result of the coercive control of a female C-suite executive who he'd been in a relationship with for ten years.

But you do you, ld.

It takes real arrogance to claim one can know know what may happen in the future when it comes to human interactions.

BTW, I saw you shift that stupid goal post.

 

[Metaphor]

In other words, you have nothing to support your argument but your bias.

No. That is a dishonest twisting of what I said.

No, it is not. But thanks for getting nasty.

It is a grossly dishonest twisting. It is not 'bias' to observe that women have certain privileges in society that are different from the privileges men have.

If your claims accords with reality, you'd have evidence to support it.

My claim was that the attempt to paint Holmes as a long-time victim of coercive control from a male partner would not make it out of the starting gate if the sexes were reversed. The evidence is that no such case exists.

Evidence against my claim would be a similar case where a male CEO claimed that he was under the coercive control of a female C-suite executive, and she was to blame for his fraud. I have never seen such a case and if there were one, I would be truly interested in its outcome.

The fact you believe something to be reasonable does not make it so.

No, the fact that it is so makes it reasonable to believe it so.

You don't. Your conjectures about what accords with reality are relevant only to your state of mind, not to reality.

Personally, I will wait for the verdict and any information about jury deliberations before drawing a conclusion.

I don't have to wait for a verdict to know that no male CEO would attempt to claim his fraud was the result of the coercive control of a female C-suite executive who he'd been in a relationship with for ten years.

But you do you, ld.

It takes real arrogance to claim one can know know what may happen in the future when it comes to human interactions.

BTW, I saw you shift that stupid goal post.

What on earth are you talking about? I have shifted no goal posts.

No male in Holmes position would attempt to defend against a fraud charge by claiming he was under the coercive control of a lower-ranking female in a company where he was CEO. He wouldn't do it even if it were the fucking truth. And everyone, including you, knows it.

 

[Toni]

In other words, you have nothing to support your argument but your bias.

No. That is a dishonest twisting of what I said.

No, it is not. But thanks for getting nasty.

It is a grossly dishonest twisting. It is not 'bias' to observe that women have certain privileges in society that are different from the privileges men have.

If your claims accords with reality, you'd have evidence to support it.

My claim was that the attempt to paint Holmes as a long-time victim of coercive control from a male partner would not make it out of the starting gate if the sexes were reversed. The evidence is that no such case exists.

Evidence against my claim would be a similar case where a male CEO claimed that he was under the coercive control of a female C-suite executive, and she was to blame for his fraud. I have never seen such a case and if there were one, I would be truly interested in its outcome.

The fact you believe something to be reasonable does not make it so.

No, the fact that it is so makes it reasonable to believe it so.

You don't. Your conjectures about what accords with reality are relevant only to your state of mind, not to reality.

Personally, I will wait for the verdict and any information about jury deliberations before drawing a conclusion.

I don't have to wait for a verdict to know that no male CEO would attempt to claim his fraud was the result of the coercive control of a female C-suite executive who he'd been in a relationship with for ten years.

But you do you, ld.

It takes real arrogance to claim one can know know what may happen in the future when it comes to human interactions.

BTW, I saw you shift that stupid goal post.

What on earth are you talking about? I have shifted no goal posts.

No male in Holmes position would attempt to defend against a fraud charge by claiming he was under the coercive control of a lower-ranking female in a company where he was CEO. He wouldn't do it even if it were the fucking truth. And everyone, including you, knows it.

Who do you think is the lower ranking male in the Holmes case?

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, you have nothing to support your argument but your bias.

No. That is a dishonest twisting of what I said.

No, it is not. But thanks for getting nasty.

It is a grossly dishonest twisting. It is not 'bias' to observe that women have certain privileges in society that are different from the privileges men have.

There you go again with the nasty accusations. It is possible I misinterpreted your post either through my efforts or your actual words. But hey, there you go again, jumping right to a nasty accusation and then persisting it.

If your claims accords with reality, you'd have evidence to support it.

My claim was that the attempt to paint Holmes as a long-time victim of coercive control from a male partner would not make it out of the starting gate if the sexes were reversed. The evidence is that no such case exists.

Evidence against my claim would be a similar case where a male CEO claimed that he was under the coercive control of a female C-suite executive, and she was to blame for his fraud. I have never seen such a case and if there were one, I would be truly interested in its outcome.

The fact you believe something to be reasonable does not make it so.

No, the fact that it is so makes it reasonable to believe it so.

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

You don't. Your conjectures about what accords with reality are relevant only to your state of mind, not to reality.

Personally, I will wait for the verdict and any information about jury deliberations before drawing a conclusion.

I don't have to wait for a verdict to know that no male CEO would attempt to claim his fraud was the result of the coercive control of a female C-suite executive who he'd been in a relationship with for ten years.

But you do you, ld.

It takes real arrogance to claim one can know know what may happen in the future when it comes to human interactions.

BTW, I saw you shift that stupid goal post.

What on earth are you talking about? I have shifted no goal posts.

Sure you did. We went from generalities to someone who had been in a relationship for 10 years.

No male in Holmes position would attempt to defend against a fraud charge by claiming he was under the coercive control of a lower-ranking female in a company where he was CEO. He wouldn't do it even if it were the fucking truth. And everyone, including you, knows it.

If it would get him acquitted, he just might. So once again, you mistaken.

 

[Metaphor]

In other words, you have nothing to support your argument but your bias.

No. That is a dishonest twisting of what I said.

No, it is not. But thanks for getting nasty.

It is a grossly dishonest twisting. It is not 'bias' to observe that women have certain privileges in society that are different from the privileges men have.

If your claims accords with reality, you'd have evidence to support it.

My claim was that the attempt to paint Holmes as a long-time victim of coercive control from a male partner would not make it out of the starting gate if the sexes were reversed. The evidence is that no such case exists.

Evidence against my claim would be a similar case where a male CEO claimed that he was under the coercive control of a female C-suite executive, and she was to blame for his fraud. I have never seen such a case and if there were one, I would be truly interested in its outcome.

The fact you believe something to be reasonable does not make it so.

No, the fact that it is so makes it reasonable to believe it so.

You don't. Your conjectures about what accords with reality are relevant only to your state of mind, not to reality.

Personally, I will wait for the verdict and any information about jury deliberations before drawing a conclusion.

I don't have to wait for a verdict to know that no male CEO would attempt to claim his fraud was the result of the coercive control of a female C-suite executive who he'd been in a relationship with for ten years.

But you do you, ld.

It takes real arrogance to claim one can know know what may happen in the future when it comes to human interactions.

BTW, I saw you shift that stupid goal post.

What on earth are you talking about? I have shifted no goal posts.

No male in Holmes position would attempt to defend against a fraud charge by claiming he was under the coercive control of a lower-ranking female in a company where he was CEO. He wouldn't do it even if it were the fucking truth. And everyone, including you, knows it.

Who do you think is the lower ranking male in the Holmes case?

Balwani. Holmes was CEO and Balwani was COO.

I'm sure each of them had their own bathrooms in the C-suite, but CEO outranks COO.

 

[Metaphor]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey. Nor am I making a claim about sociosexual politics a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years in the future, but about the state of the world right now.

Sure you did. We went from generalities to someone who had been in a relationship for 10 years.

No, I did not. I said no man in Holmes position would attempt to make the same defense ploy. The decade long relationship is, in fact, the position Holmes was in. But it needn't be exactly ten years or twelve years or however long it was. But there does need to be a relationship of some kind to claim coercive control.

If it would get him acquitted, he just might. So once again, you mistaken.

Of course it would not get him acquitted! That's my entire point! It would hurt his chances of defense, not help them!

If making a claim about the coercive control of a lower-ranking, female C-suite executive had any possibility of getting a male CEO out of trouble, that would be the exact opposite of the claim I'm making. We don't live a world where that claim would have any chance of getting him acquitted.

 

[laughing dog]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Sure you did. We went from generalities to someone who had been in a relationship for 10 years.

No, I did not. I said no man in Holmes position would attempt to make the same defense ploy. The decade long relationship is, in fact, the position Holmes was in. But it needn't be exactly ten years or twelve years or however long it was. But there does need to be a relationship of some kind to claim coercive control.

And yet you did inject the years.

If it would get him acquitted, he just might. So once again, you mistaken.

Of course it would not get him acquitted! That's my entire point! It would hurt his chances of defense, not help them!

Bullshit squared.

If making a claim about the coercive control of a lower-ranking, female C-suite executive had any possibility of getting a male CEO out of trouble, that would be the exact opposite of the claim I'm making.

By George, finally some evidence you understood something that was actually written.

 

[Metaphor]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Wow, you can barely comprehend English.

A conclusion or inference that accords with reality is a correct one. It is a fact that no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes has, and he wouldn't do it because such a defense would only have a chance if a woman claimed it.

Sure you did. We went from generalities to someone who had been in a relationship for 10 years.

No, I did not. I said no man in Holmes position would attempt to make the same defense ploy. The decade long relationship is, in fact, the position Holmes was in. But it needn't be exactly ten years or twelve years or however long it was. But there does need to be a relationship of some kind to claim coercive control.

And yet you did inject the years.

I didn't inject the years. Reality injected the years. It is a reality that Holmes was in a decade long relationship with Balwani.

If it would get him acquitted, he just might. So once again, you mistaken.

Of course it would not get him acquitted! That's my entire point! It would hurt his chances of defense, not help them!

Bullshit squared.

Okay, luv.

If making a claim about the coercive control of a lower-ranking, female C-suite executive had any possibility of getting a male CEO out of trouble, that would be the exact opposite of the claim I'm making.

By George, finally some evidence you understood something that was actually written.

Show me any case anywhere where a male CEO claimed coercive control from a lower-ranking female C-suite executive.

I'll wait.

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course it would! Don’t you know how many rich old men are led around by their…nose by gold diggers?

"And Anna Nicole married for love!"

 

[Toni]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Wow, you can barely comprehend English.

A conclusion or inference that accords with reality is a correct one. It is a fact that no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes has, and he wouldn't do it because such a defense would only have a chance if a woman claimed it.

Sure you did. We went from generalities to someone who had been in a relationship for 10 years.

No, I did not. I said no man in Holmes position would attempt to make the same defense ploy. The decade long relationship is, in fact, the position Holmes was in. But it needn't be exactly ten years or twelve years or however long it was. But there does need to be a relationship of some kind to claim coercive control.

And yet you did inject the years.

I didn't inject the years. Reality injected the years. It is a reality that Holmes was in a decade long relationship with Balwani.

If it would get him acquitted, he just might. So once again, you mistaken.

Of course it would not get him acquitted! That's my entire point! It would hurt his chances of defense, not help them!

Bullshit squared.

Okay, luv.

If making a claim about the coercive control of a lower-ranking, female C-suite executive had any possibility of getting a male CEO out of trouble, that would be the exact opposite of the claim I'm making.

By George, finally some evidence you understood something that was actually written.

Show me any case anywhere where a male CEO claimed coercive control from a lower-ranking female C-suite executive.

I'll wait.

You haven’t been following the case very well, have you? Do you know what position in the company Ramesh Balwani held?

 

[Metaphor]

You haven’t been following the case very well, have you? Do you know what position in the company Ramesh Balwani held?

I already answered your question in post 145.

Holmes was founder and CEO. Balwani was COO. Holmes was #1 and Balwani was #2.

The CEO outranks the COO.

 

[Toni]

You haven’t been following the case very well, have you? Do you know what position in the company Ramesh Balwani held?

I already answered your question in post 145.

Holmes was founder and CEO. Balwani was COO. Holmes was #1 and Balwani was #2.

The CEO outranks the COO.

We cross posted. Yes, at least nominally, the CEO does outrank the COO. Who outranks whom in a professor/student relationship?

 

[Metaphor]

You haven’t been following the case very well, have you? Do you know what position in the company Ramesh Balwani held?

I already answered your question in post 145.

Holmes was founder and CEO. Balwani was COO. Holmes was #1 and Balwani was #2.

The CEO outranks the COO.

We cross posted. Yes, at least nominally, the CEO does outrank the COO.

"Nominally"?

Who outranks whom in a professor/student relationship?

The professor.

 

[laughing dog]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Wow, you can barely comprehend English.

A conclusion or inference that accords with reality is a correct one. It is a fact that no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes has, and he wouldn't do it because such a defense would only have a chance if a woman claimed it.

I'm not the one who is claiming that "no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes....." is a fact. To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is proven to be true. To those familiar with the English language, the phrase "no male CEO would.." means past, current and future CEOs.

It is not possible to prove your claim to be true because you cannot know or document the intentions of every possible male CEO. Hence your claim is not a fact no matter how much you wish it to be so.

 

[Metaphor]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Wow, you can barely comprehend English.

A conclusion or inference that accords with reality is a correct one. It is a fact that no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes has, and he wouldn't do it because such a defense would only have a chance if a woman claimed it.

I'm not the one who is claiming that "no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes....." is a fact. To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is proven to be true.

Non. Proof is irrelevant.

It is a fact that I loaded my dishwasher this morning and turned it on the normal cycle. I have not proven it to you or anyone else.

To those familiar with the English language, the phrase "no male CEO would.." means past, current and future CEOs.

No. It is not a statement about hypothetical CEOs in the far future, for example. It is a dishonest thing to imagine that I am speculating on sociosexual gender dynamics a hundred or a thousand or a million years in the future.

It is not possible to prove your claim to be true because you cannot know or document the intentions of every possible male CEO. Hence your claim is not a fact no matter how much you wish it to be so.

It is a fact that no male CEO would do it, if you are an ordinary human beings who understands words written in English. Actually it's a fact even if you are not an ordinary human being who understands words written in English, as you appear to be.

Also, intentions are irrelevant. No male CEO would do it, which is the claim I made. It's possible that the thought might enter the head of an idiotic male CEO with no understanding of gender politics, but one would assume he had the money to hire lawyers who are not idiotic and would not let the idea get out of the starting gate.

 

[laughing dog]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Wow, you can barely comprehend English.

A conclusion or inference that accords with reality is a correct one. It is a fact that no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes has, and he wouldn't do it because such a defense would only have a chance if a woman claimed it.

I'm not the one who is claiming that "no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes....." is a fact. To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is proven to be true.

Non. Proof is irrelevant.

It is a fact that I loaded my dishwasher this morning and turned it on the normal cycle. I have not proven it to you or anyone else.

To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is provable as true. You could possibly prove you loaded your dishwasher this morning and turned it on the normal cycle,

To those familiar with the English language, the phrase "no male CEO would.." means past, current and future CEOs.

No. It is not a statement about hypothetical CEOs in the far future, for example. It is a dishonest thing to imagine that I am speculating on sociosexual gender dynamics a hundred or a thousand or a million years in the future.

You just cannot help flinging nasty accusations. Your claim with "would" includes future CEOs to anyone familiar with the English language.

It is not possible to prove your claim to be true because you cannot know or document the intentions of every possible male CEO. Hence your claim is not a fact no matter how much you wish it to be so.

It is a fact that no male CEO would do it, if you are an ordinary human beings who understands words written in English. Actually it's a fact even if you are not an ordinary human being who understands words written in English, as you appear to be.

Also, intentions are irrelevant. No male CEO would do it, which is the claim I made. It's possible that the thought might enter the head of an idiotic male CEO with no understanding of gender politics, but one would assume he had the money to hire lawyers who are not idiotic and would not let the idea get out of the starting gate.

A fact is provable as true. You cannot prove your claim, You cannot possibly know what every male CEO and his team of lawyers would do or not. To those familiar with reason, that means you cannot prove your claim is true. Which means it is not a fact, no matter how badly you wish it to be.

Frankly, I think Ms. Holmes will be found guilty. I think the magnitude of her dishonesty will mean she will not be dealt with lightly. But one can always be surprised by life.

 

[Toni]

Given the exceedingly small portion of offices in the C suites occupied by females, Metaphor has a point: Very few male CEOs would be able to claim that a female CFO or COO was the Svengali behind his malfeasance. A number of high profile male CEOs have indeed been charged and convicted of criminal charges, including fraud.

 

[Metaphor]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Wow, you can barely comprehend English.

A conclusion or inference that accords with reality is a correct one. It is a fact that no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes has, and he wouldn't do it because such a defense would only have a chance if a woman claimed it.

I'm not the one who is claiming that "no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes....." is a fact. To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is proven to be true.

Non. Proof is irrelevant.

It is a fact that I loaded my dishwasher this morning and turned it on the normal cycle. I have not proven it to you or anyone else.

To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is provable as true.

Non. You are wrong. Indeed, it is a fact that you are wrong.

Essential Meaning of fact
1 : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
2 : a true piece of information The book is filled with interesting facts and figures. Those are the (cold) hard facts of the case.

You could possibly prove you loaded your dishwasher this morning and turned it on the normal cycle,

To those familiar with the English language, the phrase "no male CEO would.." means past, current and future CEOs.

No. It is not a statement about hypothetical CEOs in the far future, for example. It is a dishonest thing to imagine that I am speculating on sociosexual gender dynamics a hundred or a thousand or a million years in the future.

You just cannot help flinging nasty accusations. Your claim with "would" includes future CEOs to anyone familiar with the English language.

No. It does not include CEOs in the far future. Anyone interested in an honest exchange would not make that claim.

It is not possible to prove your claim to be true because you cannot know or document the intentions of every possible male CEO. Hence your claim is not a fact no matter how much you wish it to be so.

It is a fact that no male CEO would do it, if you are an ordinary human beings who understands words written in English. Actually it's a fact even if you are not an ordinary human being who understands words written in English, as you appear to be.

Also, intentions are irrelevant. No male CEO would do it, which is the claim I made. It's possible that the thought might enter the head of an idiotic male CEO with no understanding of gender politics, but one would assume he had the money to hire lawyers who are not idiotic and would not let the idea get out of the starting gate.

A fact is provable as true.

Incorrect.

You cannot prove your claim, You cannot possibly know what every male CEO and his team of lawyers would do or not. To those familiar with reason, that means you cannot prove your claim is true. Which means it is not a fact, no matter how badly you wish it to be.

Incorrect.

Frankly, I think Ms. Holmes will be found guilty. I think the magnitude of her dishonesty will mean she will not be dealt with lightly. But one can always be surprised by life.

I also think she will be found guilty, given the overwhelming evidence against her. She may not be let off lightly, but she may be let off more lightly than she would have, had she not been female.

 

[laughing dog]

It cannot be fact, because you cannot know what would or would not come out of some "starting gate" in the future unless you are omnipotent.

I do not have to be omnipotent to make reasonable conclusions about the state of the world. Oy vey.

Wow, you think a conclusion/inference is a fact.

Wow, you can barely comprehend English.

A conclusion or inference that accords with reality is a correct one. It is a fact that no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes has, and he wouldn't do it because such a defense would only have a chance if a woman claimed it.

I'm not the one who is claiming that "no male CEO would try and defend himself in the way Holmes....." is a fact. To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is proven to be true.

Non. Proof is irrelevant.

It is a fact that I loaded my dishwasher this morning and turned it on the normal cycle. I have not proven it to you or anyone else.

To those familiar with the English language, a fact is something that is provable as true.

Non. You are wrong. Indeed, it is a fact that you are wrong.

You are mistaken.

Essential Meaning of fact
1 : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
2 : a true piece of information The book is filled with interesting facts and figures. Those are the (cold) hard facts of the case.

None of which apply to your claim.

You could possibly prove you loaded your dishwasher this morning and turned it on the normal cycle,

To those familiar with the English language, the phrase "no male CEO would.." means past, current and future CEOs.

No. It is not a statement about hypothetical CEOs in the far future, for example. It is a dishonest thing to imagine that I am speculating on sociosexual gender dynamics a hundred or a thousand or a million years in the future.

You just cannot help flinging nasty accusations. Your claim with "would" includes future CEOs to anyone familiar with the English language.

No. It does not include CEOs in the far future. Anyone interested in an honest exchange would not make that claim.

And there is yet another nasty accusation imbedded in your straw man. Why on earth are you babbling on CEOS far in the future?

It is not possible to prove your claim to be true because you cannot know or document the intentions of every possible male CEO. Hence your claim is not a fact no matter how much you wish it to be so.

It is a fact that no male CEO would do it, if you are an ordinary human beings who understands words written in English. Actually it's a fact even if you are not an ordinary human being who understands words written in English, as you appear to be.

Also, intentions are irrelevant. No male CEO would do it, which is the claim I made. It's possible that the thought might enter the head of an idiotic male CEO with no understanding of gender politics, but one would assume he had the money to hire lawyers who are not idiotic and would not let the idea get out of the starting gate.

A fact is provable as true.

Incorrect.

You are mistaken.

You cannot prove your claim, You cannot possibly know what every male CEO and his team of lawyers would do or not. To those familiar with reason, that means you cannot prove your claim is true. Which means it is not a fact, no matter how badly you wish it to be.

Incorrect.

No, I am not incorrect. Apparently, you feel your assertion that something is a fact makes it so. You are mistaken.

Frankly, I think Ms. Holmes will be found guilty. I think the magnitude of her dishonesty will mean she will not be dealt with lightly. But one can always be surprised by life.

I also think she will be found guilty, given the overwhelming evidence against her. She may not be let off lightly, but she may be let off more lightly than she would have, had she not been female.

Maybe. When and if that occurs, I look forward a rational discussion based on the actual facts rather your current nonsense.

 

[Metaphor]

None of which apply to your claim.

Your claim was that a 'fact' means something is provable. Your claim was wrong, and, as usual, you refuse to concede you were wrong.

You are mistaken.

No. You are wrong. A fact does not need to be 'proved' to be a fact, as you claimed. You were wrong and now you are doubling down on your wrongness. Your wrongness is obvious to all and sundry, including dead people.

Apparently, you feel your assertion that something is a fact makes it so. You are mistaken.

No, the fact that it is a fact makes it so.

I look forward a rational discussion based on the actual facts rather your current nonsense.

The fact is that you were wrong about what a fact is, as I proved.