Zephan writes:
See how we have slipped from Bias as evidence to "evidence of Bias" in a discussion of what constitutes evidence. I can only speak for myself, but to me this does not read like Zephan is experienced in reasoned arguement, the nature of evidence or predicate logic. What do others think?
Zephan appears to be following a well established lawyerly tactic: when the evidence is against you, obfuscate. He began by ignoring questions, and moved on to introducing irrelevancies. He clearly knows that where juries are concerned, confusion trumps rational arugments.
There are a myriad of other available obfuscative techniques that Zephan can employ, and this discussion can not and will not progress as long as engaging the discussion would be counter to his interests. For the time being, clarity does not serve Zephan's goals.
In a court of law the judge is the guardian at the gate deciding which evidence and arguments are admitted and which are not. In debates here, board administration usually avoids trying to play this role, but at present much space is being devoted across many threads to unsupported and/or nonsensical arguments that don't seem worth responding to.
--Percy