A call for “tangible, physical evidence” is broad, sure. However, when it is made directly after a more specific request for specific “tangible, physical evidence” without any indication that the initial request was withdrawn, it sure as hell looks like a request for that same specific “tangible, physical evidence”.
Sure, if one ignores the plain language of “tangible, physical evidence.” Indeed, the words used for both phrases are different, the words for both phrases have a limited range of meaning, the meanings being different, indicates the message of what is being requested isn’t the same for both phrases. Considering that I am perfectly capable of asking for something specific, since I already did it, and subsequently didn’t ask for the same specific object but asked for something different, your “sure as hell looks like” is untenable.
No, it isn't untenable.
Given that up to that point you had not indicated that the original specific request was no longer the request being made, it was certainly reasonable that the previous specific request was still the thing being requested despite the non-specificity of the follow up.
You asked for a specific physical signed document, it was noted that was an unreasonable request to make of a random person on the internet. You then responded that it was not unreasonable to ask for non-specific tangible, physical evidence (btw, that is still unreasonable to ask of a random person in a discussion on an internet forum). Why would you even make that comment if you were not still asking for the same thing that was described as unreasonable in the first place?
You see, I am maintaining a defense against your objection, therefor it is wrong to characterize my response as untenable.
Why would you even make that comment if you were not still asking for the same thing that was described as unreasonable in the first place?
Answered previously. To repeat, to sidestep your red herring and bring the conversation back to the topic of Jarhyn’s claims. I moved past your invitation to discuss irrelevancies. So, I stated I’d settle for other evidence in support of Jarhyn’s claims. Your view is untenable because it ignores the plain text, good ol’ fashion meaning of words, probably for the purpose to continue with your need to bitch about something. Furthermore, since I am demonstrably capable of requesting specific kinds of evidence, and I had done so, then the request for something else, as explicitly stated by the use of entirely different words, renders your view untenable.
My view has two parts. Addressing your complain about something red herring. The other part of my argument is moving past that and asking for other evidence to support Jarhyn’s claims.
Indeed, you didn’t attempt to provide any other kind of evidence that might support Jarhyn’s claims. You’ve made no attempt to defend Jarhyn’s claims with any reasoned argument, illuminating your purpose was to bitch about something and nothing more.
You must be a fan of Des Cartes. You type it, therefore it is! You can allege ad nauseum the request is unreasonable, typing it, saying it, doesn’t make it so. You can repeat your appeal to self-evident with your remark circular comment of of I think it is reasonable, then says a lot about my view of what is reasonable, and it is circular as its premised upon assuming what I asked was unreasonable.
Yet, what I asked hasn’t been shown by you to be unreasonable and your vacuous appeal to it being self-evident is possibly a consequence of being incapable of making a showing of unreasonableness.
Regardless, your interjection with the red herring of whether the request is reasonable distracts from the ostensible, metaphysical claims made by Jarhyn. Jarhyn claimed Phillips had a specific “job to do” and certain “requirements,” among them to serve the whole community. What’s the evidence for this? He didn’t provide any. A good starting point would be the papers Phillips signed to operate his business. That IS relevant evidence to the issue and it isn’t unreasonable to request he submit them if he can, you know to support his claims of what Phillips IS to do. Making extraordinary claims, like Jarhyn did, requires strong evidence, and what I requested is relevant evidence.
